Bie Bal ὧν χὰ αν tere Λῴιδο oy Mette σα σις κρωρε τος Het 


/. Seyret mene teas Pv he δ be ROH arial astnad Ne: 
Bene Fenty Maho 


reer ἀν ον ΡΨ ere 


ὡ ων, δ ἣν, κε TMA οἱ Ce ee ἐν ἫΝ ΨῈ ἐν ἐψ Ἢ »Ὲ 8. δὰ νι μὰν Τρ ἐδ ΔΘ βὰν πῷ δον ΟΝ ἄν te Σιν “ἢ, 
νον ΡΥ Tec tan 
Be ON ἐν FO Me αι Mlb ἀν Be Re ite es HN ee α ike ONT De PR EAE IN AL Mh USD ST ἐδ ἣν A ON δὲ RATS Wedibeth 4} χὰ rd om dee EYES A ey STE τὶ (ὦ τ τὰν σὰ oe ἡ Ὧν ἂν 
PE Deen Pel Te db ENG AN EIT Ao δον ἀνε Lee MIMO MN ay Be Ke toon, Pint MOA ES ON ER Sy οἰν ὃς Meee δῆρ ψν ἐὰ MAT ον «Ὁ ἄν IN ἐν νης SRY ἐν δὰ Gt AE σὰ ον MAE Gta OY BAL ὧν να τερον iS 
Me RETR She ML TV TAU ER κα Ἂν δῷς METRE ἐς May EE He CAE MET ὡς δὲ Ae νη νι 
ei hee i ed SORT re a 
δι MEME LD oh “ον MPN αν δῷ δὰ τ. ἐφ ῦΣ.ν FLO δ δὰ ὧν δι λα" Ἷ vy ALON AB a a οὐ το, 

A BDO AT ETON SE Wns ἐδ ἂν δ BRA ERD bao 
ee ΔῊ εἰν ὧν ae eA oe δὲ 
Σ ΙΝ 


24 TAAL Marty 


Ra AUS οἱ ay 
TTR ψημκιὶν. fat AA Pi ERTS τον οὖν A IST Mel 
div eX ty Beg h Oh σὲ de SOFAS ORO ἐν. a 2 
Ee INIA BOD OL φᾷ φ'. OL δὰ, ή. Ay SDD δ᾽ ae ated ANE ESTA ay ge Stee δ 
᾿ τὸν ἐν αὶ τας οἷ ἐφ EA LSA Re tel ONE μὲ ἐν hae 
ὍΔ 8, ΑΚ, ἐδ AN PY κα Ae MS fin συν ἐφ RTL 


wy 
hen 88 chan νι 


ee oe νεῖν ee ne een ee CET) 
he ee eB OW Re og ON OF Mve ge ee αν ἐν αὖ σῷ, 
EERE ANA BS OREN ISH, Σ᾽ νὰ Reta fin BRIN δὲν Ἦν Abed 5 ἀν ηφευλεν Why Ad ges ρα, 
PRENATAL A AL ψὰ σὰ σραλν ες ἄν οι δος ὅς IN μὰ να AN σὲ νὴ Ἄρδυν μὰ τῷ OLR πρός 
ἐδ διό ἐν ee es OS tee ϑινδν- δ τ σὺ κε ἀρ τονδὶ Το oe ee 
IN TE RET RO Le ete κα εἢ ἧς 7 
PEE IMAMEED ARDS ὧν LEM δ ον. Ἀν δὺς A AN PEERY οὖν τῇ ip εν. ποὖν ἐγωδ a 
“a Mie Lobes Pet fe δια A pe Thad lal ἄς 28s MWe ἂν eR ὡς ἐν Me Δι hehe WEN IS sas be fle PTR NRE NN Oe ADEE OND OG MLA ἀν μὴν TON δῇ MS SAAN She OMNI Bes ae 
fe tai: , WA BEET, We να σα “ , AT DL ΔΑ ΚΑ ON Pye die ale Ὁ 
oh FD OSD ARENT Mek Seat 


z ΕΝ = Ἀν αν gad 
ΔΑ μὲν AEA EE PD RMD αὖ σὲ ὧν δε ἄκων να, AE ett ἐν ἐλ ΟΣ φα penn eh κα 
δι δν δὰ rE NESE δὰ ὥρων FERGIE κα σα δ SIA ὦ STR ASR AE mt + 
A ME ον TS δὲ EMO Sheet ry RA Me Same BG 
μάν ἐτιῶνς τῳ δὲ ᾿ς : i 
Heth Biettny ὃν σι EM IE Mat a 
4 “ἐπα Peeks ὧν FANS δ AR ἐνόν τ ον Em EL "νὰ νᾺν ὦ MEA αν, 
κ 76% 4 - ae E Ν Ξ 5 Ὁ ᾿ So Meiners νι, “Ὁ FEM inggatidl gir ὅδ, ie Be de 
μος Shimla phat Liat Pantie Maen Wie ete τῶ σον, . i i a 5 ϑ ee ghe tenner 
τ tate ee μεν ον σαν οι ον 


τ : ᾿ με τὴν, ἐκ ἂν crwth "κε ερεπεσθυνς 
ΟΝ Fei δὼ te φόνῳ ν᾿ NAY eee Hy whet! ata 
> etna? whieh ip Dn Ma SEA νι α αἰδηο, δὲν Hs Garttadignton γι ψέματα, εν. tte hela tie “ἴον Bedi a ἂν ἥωδι letiathe eng bi γῶν Balt nM AWN SL Py hithe cbeatedy ἐν woh 
eaten Seine Martie ep masa ia ρονῆνν Ne ταν Shea φημ ολκαῆν. Rn ia Ye Nia ἀφϑδιφ δ᾽ ὃν μος δὺς γ΄, Hmiteg Mad heDVied aehiadly τ σαν 
Set ng ne Mette alt Pew ted het Nie NO ee ΡΜ tell " Ne dy 
Lyte aS Nett Rete Moin mime Malden δι pital at eV δι δὶς me stot fol Pu οὐ han Sed oe etwas Moy νιν σις Waco eta “τ: ον ae ed one 

whe HN SRO y heen Me δε, 5. Ma ἐφ δα bin θην εν, καρ Mecha hae RN 6 inte Sana Sie Coane AV a μένον ea ρόδα δι Pur ὃ νὸν tthe AS πὲ τὸ ate tng NM Lt SIS νῷ θα enh 
= Bind Bin OSAP id whee SV, αν ον» θη, Ma we py mat act Εἰς ὅσια, Lin tg σωστὰ EET eI EIS, ας Bally ochre yatta a fae ee μεῖς aN DNB Baw ts epee ala seta IN Mit sane es 3 E 
Cv ϑς ἐν, aa tatnertelion alm Voit dae VP te MaMa Dib gta te Satie Litt itn inn are Met PE cee the sy ae Sie hese net oe Ms ὃν Preeti ἂν ὧν ὧν Swe Mee Dele Beary PV Nhe ee Mig trees ce a 
“ων σα ἐν 
φανοῦ, rate tie Pas Pa Neo WaT Na δ MAE a Lees LMP ae Custis Po Ah Peres το, πῆρ τ σὰ 0 φὰς, κὸν δὴν nines δ᾽» (ι F f meena 
ata re ns Nae hm aarti So Oe aA IW Na Ooty Bie δ " a ee το πον nl RT ait A καν᾿ 4 τῶν ἃς 7 - ’ Rie 
Ne Mat Oe See ee ee ee ed aby A φυν ον ΔΝ be Mig th Σ᾽ Me 
ofa Tok renew et act Mi i eis hed tg him eBid a Ne OS aR tS Mee A si E Pati 

a tee aE tat ἐν δι μνν δ αν, μι γώ δηρφιηρούμαρ πω νάνν ψ, 


SAN Ne ean ANID κλεῖν 


sia 
8 aN Sino thay WP atom a tt a 
Wa Lin Myatt ets a Seto te md oa cede me Pe ae 


LNA AAA Debate 5 
z Tee al ee wee mk 
τρριλωστῳ δι thee EL te noe 4 
Pe Be Bi wratmina Oe ED ony Men 


eNOS Va tbat aot 


wrens 
Nee at oF od τ 


bin Shaadi ta ἀρὰν αν Sodas τ το mons atnse setae’ 3 ee “ro ΟΣ ΩΣ ee ae = ὙαΡ ΝΣ 
Sea a pe a iin ae ceeds ing ecco 


y ἽΝ ἡ δὲ ἢ ee. ΨΚ ΨΥ Ὑ Ψ Ο be? 




















2 KA aa iy 





age 





THE 


“ny 


“LOST AND HOSTILE GOSPELS, 





é 
ey 
iq; 
ἔ : 
: * ' wert 
oy 7 












THE oe 
Oe 2 


LOST AND HOSTILE GO 


an Essay 


ON THE TOLEDOTH JESCHU, AND THE PETRINE AND 
PAULINE GOSPELS OF THE FIRST THREE CEN- 


TURIES OF WHICH FRAGMENTS REMAIN. 


; BY 


"4 
Rey. 5. BARING-GOULD, M.A. 


AUTHOR OF ‘‘THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF,” 
““LEGENDARY LIVES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CHARACTERS,” 
ETC. 


WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 


14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON; 
Awp 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 


1874. 


Ψ 


Ὁ LONDON: Te , 
"PRINTED BY 6. GREEN AND SON, 
(178, stRAND. 





PREFACK. 


It is advisable, if not necessary, for me, by way of preface, 
to explain certain topics treated of in this book, which do 
not come under its title, and which, at first thought, may be 
taken to have but a remote connection with the ostensible 
subject of this treatise. These are: 

1. The outbreak of Antinomianism which disfigured and 
distressed primitive Christianity. 

2. The opposition of the Nazarene Church to St. Paul. 

3. The structure and composition of the Synoptical Gos- 
pels. 

The consideration of these curious and important topics 
has forced its way into these pages ; for the first two throw 
great light on the history of those Gospels which have dis- 
appeared, and which it is not possible to reconstruct without 
a knowledge of the religious parties to which they belonged. 
And these parties were determined by the fundamental ques- 
tion of Law or No-law, as represented by the Petrine and 
ultra-Pauline Christians. And the third of these topics is 
necessarily bound up with the consideration of the structure 


and origin of the Lost Gospels, as the reader will see if he 


v1 PREFACE. 


cares to follow me in the critical examination of their extant 
fragments. 

Upon each of these points a few preliminary words will 
not, I hope, come amiss, and may prevent misunderstanding. 

1. The history of the Church, as the history of nations, is 
not to be read with prejudiced eyes, with penknife in hand 
to erase facts which fight against foregone conclusions. 

English Churchmen have long gazed with love on the 
Primitive Church as the ideal of Christian perfection, the 
Eden wherein the first fathers of their faith walked blameless 
before God, and passionless towards each other. To doubt, 
to dissipate in any way this pleasant dream, may shock and 
pain certain gentle spirits. Alas! the fruit of the tree of 
γνῶσις, if it opens the eyes, saddens also and shames the 
heart. 

History, whether sacred or profane, hides her teaching 
from those who study her through coloured glasses. She 
only reveals truth to those who look through the cold clear 
medium of passionless inquiry, who seek the Truth without 
determining first the masquerade in which alone they will 
receive it. 

It exhibits a strange, a sad want of faith in Truth thus 
to constrain history to turn out facts according to order, to 
squeeze it through the sieve of prejudice. And what imdeed 
is Truth in history but the voice of God instructing the 
world through the vices, follies, errors of the past? 

A calm, patient spirit of inquiry is an attitude of the 
modern mind alone. To this mind History has-made strange 


disclosures which she kept locked up through former ages. 


PREFACE. Vii 


The world of Nature lay before the men of the past, but 
they could not, would not read it, save from left to right, or 
right to left, as their prejudices ran. The wise and learned 
had to cast aside their formule, and sit meekly at the feet of 
Nature, as little children, before they learned her laws. Nor 
will History submit to hectoring. Only now is she unfolding 
the hidden truth in her ancient scrolls. 

It is too late to go back to conclusions of an uncritical age, 
though it was that of our fathers; the time for denying the 
facts revealed by careful criticism is passed away as truly as 
is the time for explaining the shadows in the moon by the 
story of the Sabbath-breaker and his faggot of sticks. 

And criticism has put a lens to our eyes, and disclosed to 
us on the shining, remote face of primitive Christianity rents 
and craters undreamt of in our old simplicity. 

That there was, in the breast of the new-born Church, an 
element of antinomianism, not latent, but in virulent activity, 
is a fact as capable of demonstration as any conclusion in a 
science which is not exact. 

In the apostolic canonical writings we see the beginning of 
the trouble ; the texture of the Gospels is tinged by it; the 
Epistles of Paul on one side, of Jude and Peter on the other, 
show it in energetic operation ; ecclesiastical history reveals it 
in full flagrance a century later. 

Whence came the spark? what material ignited? These 
are questions that must be answered. We cannot point to 
the blaze in the sub-apostolic age, and protest that it was an 
instantaneous combustion, with no smouldering train leading 


up to it,—to the rank crop of weeds, and argue that they 


Vill PREFACE, 





sprang from no seed. We shall have to look up the stream 
to the fountains whence the flood was poured. 

The existence of antinomianism in the Churches of Greece 
and Asia Minor, synchronizing with their foundation, tran- 
spires from the Epistles of St. Paul. It was an open sore in 
the life-time of the Twelve; it was a sorrow weighing daily on 
the great soul of the Apostle of the Gentiles. It called forth 
the indignant thunder of Jude and Peter, and the awful 
denunciations in the charges to the Seven Churches. 

The apocryphal literature of the sub-apostolic period carries 
on the sad story. Under St. John’s presiding care, the gross 
scandals which defiled Gentile Christianity were purged out, 
and antinomian Christianity deserted Asia Minor for Alex- 
andria. There it made head again, as revealed to us by the 
controversialists of the third century. And there it disap- 
peared for a while. 

Yet the disease was never eradicated. Its poison still 
lurked in the veins of the Church, and again and again 
throughout the Middle Ages heretics emerged fitfully, true 
successors of Nicolas, Cerdo, Marcion and Valentine, shaking 
off the trammels of the moral law, and seeking justification 
through mystic exaltation or spiritual emotion. The Papacy 
trod down these ugly heretics with ruthless heel. But at the 
Reformation, when the restraint was removed, the disease 
broke forth in a multitude of obscene sects spotting the fair 
face of Protestantism. 

Nor has the virus exhausted itself: Its baleful workings, 
if indistinct, are still present and threatening. 

But how comes it that Christianity has thus its dark 


PREFACE. 1X 


shadow constantly haunting it? The cause is to be sought 
in the constitution of man. Man, moving in his little orbit, 
has ever a face turned away from the earth and all that is 
material, looking out into infinity,—a dark, unknown side, 
about whose complexion we may speculate, but which we 
can never map. It is a face which must ever remain myste- 
rious, and ever radiate into mystery. As the eye and ear are 
bundles of nerves through which the inner man goes out into, 
and receives impressions from, the material world, so is the 
soul a marvellous tissue of fibres through which man is placed. 
en rapport with the spiritual world, God and infinity. It is 
the existence of this face, these fibres—take which simile you 
like-—which has constituted mystics in every age all over the 
world: Schamans in frozen Siberia, Fakirs in burning India, 
absorbed Buddhists, ecstatic Saints, Essenes, Witches, Anchor- 
ites, Swedenborgians, modern Spiritualists. 

Man, double-faced by nature, is placed by Revelation 
under a sharp, precise external rule, controlling his actions 
and his thoughts. 

To this rule spirit and body are summoned to do homage. 
But the spirit has an inherent tendency towards the un- 
limited, by virtue of its nature, which places it on the con- 
fines of the infinite. Consequently it is never easy under a 
rule which is imposed on it conjoimtly with the body; it 
strains after emancipation, strives to assert its independence 
of what is external, and to establish its claim to obey only 
the movements in the spiritual world. It throbs sympatheti- 
cally with the auroral flashes in that realm of mystery, like 
the flake of gold-leaf in the magnetometer. 

as 


x PREFACE. 


To be bound to the body, subjected to its laws, is degrad- 
ing; to be unbounded, unconditioned, is its aspiration and 
supreme felicity. 

Thus the incessant effort of the spirit is to establish its 
law in the inner world of feeling, and remove it from the 
material world without. 

Moreover, inasmuch as the spirit melts into the infinite, 
cut off from it by no sharply-defined line, it is disposed to 
regard itself as a part of God, a creek of the great Ocean of 
Divinity, and to suppose that all its emotions are the pulsa- 
tions of the tide in the all-embracing Spirit. It loses the 
consciousness of its individuality ; it deifies itself. 

A Suffee fable representing God and the human soul illus- 
trates this well. ‘One knocked at the Beloved’s door, and 
a voice from within cried, ‘Who is there?’ Then the soul 
answered, ‘It is I.’ And the voice of God said, ‘This house 
will not hold me and thee.’ So the door remained shut. 
Then the soul went away into a wilderness, and after long 
fasting and prayer it returned, and knocked once again at the 
door. And again the voice demanded, ‘Who is there?’ - 
| Then he said, ‘It is THov,’ and at once the door opened to 
him.” 

Thus the mystic always regards his unregulated wishes as 
divine revelations, his random impulses as heavenly inspira- 
tions. He has no law but his own will; and therefore, in 
mysticism, there is no curb against the grossest licence. 

The existence of that evil which, knowing the constitution 
of man, we should expect to find prevalent in mysticism, the 


experience of all ages has shown following, dogging its steps 


PREFACE. ΧΙ 
inevitably. So slight is the film that separates religious from 
sensual passion, that uncontrolled spiritual fervour roars 
readily into a blaze of licentiousness. 

It is this which makes revivalism of every description so 
dangerous. It is a two-edged weapon that cuts the hand 
which holds it. 

Yet the spiritual, religious element in man is that which is 
most beautiful and pure, when passionless. It is lke those 
placid tarns, crystal clear and icy cold, in Auvergne and the 
Eifel, which lie in the sleeping vents of old volcanoes. We 
love to linger by them, yet never with security, for we know 
that a throb, a shock, may at any moment convert them into 
boiling geysirs or raging craters. 

So well is this fact known in the Roman Church, that a 
mystic is inexorably shut up in a convent, or cast out as a 
heretic. 

The more spiritual a religion is, the more apt it is to lurch 
and let in a rush of immorality ; for its tendency is to substi- 
tute an internal for the external law, and the internal impulse 
is too often a hidden jog from the carnal appetite. In a 
highly spiritual religion, a written revelation is supplemented 
or superseded by one which is within. 

This was eminently the case with the Anabaptists of the six- 
teenth century. When plied with texts by the Lutheran divines, 
they coldly answered that they walked not after the letter, but 
after the spirit ; that to those who are in Christ Jesus, there 
is an inner illumination directing their conduct, before which 


that which is without grew pale and waned. The horrible 


= -- 
— 
—> 


4 


Xll PREFACE. 


licence into which this internal light plunged them is matter 
of history. 

One lesson history enforces inexorably—that there lies a 
danger to morals in placing reliance on the spirit as an inde- 
pendent guide. 

The spirit has its proper function and its true security ; 
its function, the perception of the infinite, the divine; its 
security, the observance of the marriage-tie which binds it to 
the body. 

God has joined body and spirit in sacred wedlock, and 
subjected both to a revealed external law; in the maintenance 
of this union, and submission to this law, man’s safety lies. 
The spirit supreme, the body a bond-maid, is no marriage ; it 
is a concubinage, bringing with it a train of attendant evils. 

Man stands, so to speak, at the bisection of two circles, 


the material and the spiritual, in each of which he has a 


-part, and to the centres of each of which he feels a gravi- 


tation. Absorption in either realm is fatal to the well-being 
of the entire man. 

And this leads us to the consideration of the marvellous 
aptitude to human nature of the Incarnation, welding together 
into indissoluble union spirit and matter, the infinite and the 
finite. The religion which flows from that source cannot dis- 
sociate soul from body. Its law is the marriage of that which 
is spiritual to that which is material; the soul cannot shake 
off the responsibilities of the body; everything spiritual is 
clothed, and every material object is a sacrament conveying a 


ray of divinity. 


PREFACE. Xl 





There can be no evasion, no abrasion and rupture of the 
tie by either party, without lesion of the chain which binds 
to the Incarnation ; and it is a fact worthy of note, that 
mysticism has always a tendency to obscure this fundamental 
dogma, and that the immoral sects of ancient times and of 
the present day hang loosely by, or openly deny, this great 
verity. | 

St. Paul had a natural bias towards mysticism. His trances 
and revelations betoken a nature branching out into the 
spiritual realm ; and throughout his letters we see the in- 
evitable consequence—a struggle to displace the centre of 
obedience, to transfer it from without and enthrone it within, 
to make the internal revelation the governing principle of 


action, in the room of submission to an external law. 


| 


δ 


Ι 


But, like St. Theresa, who never relinquished her common { 


sense whilst yielding up her spirit to the most incoherent 


4 
4 
: 


raptures ; like Mohammad, who, however he might soar in | 


ecstasy above the moon, never lost sight of the principles 


which would ensure a very material success; like Ignatius 
Loyola, who, in the midst of fantastic visions, elaborated a 
system of government full of the maturest judgment,—so St. 
Paul never surrendered himself unconditionally to the prompt- 
ings of his spirit. Like the angel of the Apocalypse, if he 
stood with one foot in the vague sea, he kept the other on 
the solid land. 
That thorn in the flesh, whose presence he deplored, kept 
him from forgetting the body and its obligations ; the moral 
disorders breaking out wherever he preached his gospel, 


warned him in time not to relax too far the restraint imposed 


| 
| 


XIV PREFACE. 


by the law without. As the revolt of the Anabaptists 
checked Luther, so did the excesses of the Gentile Christians 
arrest Paul. Both saw and obeyed the warning finger of 
Providence signalling a retreat. 

Divinely inspired St. Paul was. But inspiration never 
obscures and obliterates human characteristics. It directs 
and utilizes them for its own purpose, leaving free margin 
beyond that purpose for the exercise of individual proclivities 
uncontrolled. 

Paul’s natural tendency is unmistakable ; and we may see 
evidence of divine guidance in the fact of his having refused 
to give the rein to his natural propensities, and of being pre- 
pared to turn all his energies to the repairing of those dykes 
against the ocean which in a moment of impatience he had 
set his hand to tear down. 

As Socrates was by nature prone to become the most 
vicious of men, so was Paul naturally disposed to become the 
most dangerous of heresiarchs. But the moral sense of So- 
crates mastered his passions and converted him into a philo- 
sopher; and the guiding spirit of God made of Paul the 
mystic an apostle of righteousness. 

Christianity, as the religion of the Incarnation, has its 
external form and its internal spirit, and it is impossible to 
dissociate one from the other without peril. Mere formalism 
and naked spirituality are alike and equally pernicious. For- 
malism, the resolution of religion into ceremonial acts only, 
void of spirit, is like the octopus, lacing its thousand filaments 
about the soul and drawing it into the abyss; and mysticism, 


pure spirituality, like the magnet mountain in Sinbad’s 


PREFACE, XV 


voyage, draws the nails out of the vessel—the rivets of moral 
law—and the Christian character goes to pieces. 


The history of the Church is the history of her leaning 


first towards one side, then towards the other, of advance / 


amid perpetual recoils from either peril. 


2. The alarm caused in Jerusalem amidst the elder apostles ) 


and the Nazarene Church at the immorality which disfigured | 


Pauline Christianity, was not the only cause of the mistrust 
wherewith they viewed him and his teaching. Other causes 
᾿ existed which I have not touched on in my text, lest I 
should distract attention from the main points of my argu- 


ment, but they are deserving of notice here. 


ay 


And the first of these was the intense prejudice which) 


«ΞΡ Rak 


κα 


existed among the Jews of Palestine against Greek modes of! 
thought, manners, culture, even against the Greek language. 

The second was the jealousy with which the Palestinian 
Jews regarded the Alexandrine Jews, their mode of inter- 
preting Scripture, and their system of theology. 

St. Paul, an accomplished Greek scholar, brought up at 
Tarsus amidst Hellenistic Jews, adopted the theology and 
exegesis In vogue at Alexandria, and on both these accounts 
excited the suspicion and dislike of the national party at 
Jerusalem. The Nazarenes were imbued with the prejudices 
they had acquired in their childhood, in the midst of which 
they had grown up, and they could not but regard Paul with 
alarm when he turned without disguise to the Greeks, and 
introduced into the Church the theological system and scriptu- 
ral interpretations of a- Jewish community they had always 


regarded as of questionable orthodoxy. 


XV1 PREFACE. 


First let us consider the causes which contributed to the 
creation of the prejudice against the Hellenizers. Judea had 
served as the battlefield of the Greek kings of Egypt and 
Syria. Whether Judea fell under the dominion of Syria or 
Egypt it mattered not; Ptolemies and Seleucides alike were 
intolerable oppressors. But it was especially the latter who 
excited to its last exasperation the fanaticism of the Jews, 
and called forth in their breasts an ineffaceable antipathy 
towards everything that was Greek. 

The temple was pillaged by them, the sanctuary was — 
violated, the high-priesthood degraded. Antiochus Epi- 
phanes entertamed the audacious design of completely over- 
throwing the religion of the Jews, of forcibly Hellenizing 
them. For this purpose he forbade the celebration of the 
Sabbaths and feasts, drenched the sanctuary with blood to 
pollute it, the sacrifices were not permitted, circumcision was 
made illegal. The sufferings of the Jews, driven into deserts 
and remote hiding-places in the mountains, are described in 
the first book of the Maccabees. 

Yet there was a party disposed to acquiesce in this attempt 
at changing the whole current of their nation’s life, ready to 
undo the work of Ezra, break with their past, and fling them- 
selves into the tide of Greek civilization and philosophic 
thought. These men set up a gymnasium in Jerusalem, 
Grecised their names, openly scoffed at the Law, ignored the 
Sabbath, and neglected circumcision.! At the head of this 
party stood the high-priests Jason and Menelaus. The author 


1 Joseph, Antig. xii. 5; 1 Maccab. i. 11—15, 48, 52; 2 Maccab. iv. 
9—16. 


PREFACE. XVil 


of the first book of the Maccabees styles these conformists to 
the state policy, ‘‘evil men, seducing many to despise the 
Law.” Josephus designates them as “wicked” and “ im- 
pious.” ἢ 

The memory of the miseries endured in the persecution of 
Antiochus did not fade out of the Jewish mind, neither did 
the party disappear which was disposed to symbolize with 
Greek culture, and was opposed to Jewish prejudice. Nor 


did the abhorrence in which it was held lose its intensity. 


From the date of the Antiochian persecution, the names of | 


“Greek” or “friend of the Greeks” were used as synonymous 
with “traitor” and “apostate.” 

Seventy years before Christ, whilst Hyrcanus was besieging 
Aristobulus in Jerusalem, the besiegers furnished the besieged 
daily with lambs for the sacrifice. An old Jew, belonging to 
the anti-national party, warned Hyrcanus that as long as the 
city was supplied with animals for the altar, so long it would 
hold out. On the morrow, in place of a lamb, a pig was 
flung over the walls. The earth shuddered at the impiety, 
and the heads of the synagogue solemnly cursed from thence- 
forth whosoever of their nation should for the future teach 
the Greek tongue to his sons.2 Whether this incident be 
true or not, it proves that a century after Antiochus Epi- 
phanes the Jews entertained a hatred of that Greek culture 
which they regarded as a source of incredulity and impiety. 


The son of Duma asked his uncle Israel if, after having 


1 πονήροι, docBetc.—Antiq. xiii. 4, xii. 10. 
2 Baba-Kama, fol. 82; Menachoth, fol. 64; Sota, fol. 49; San-Baba, 
fol. 90, 


. pT 


XVlll PREFACE. 


learned the whole Law, he might not study the philosophy 
of the Greeks. “‘The Book of the Law shall not depart out 
of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night.’ 
These are the words of God” (Josh. i. 8), said the old man; 
“find me an hour which is neither day nor night, and in 
that study your Greek philosophy.” 

Gamaliel, the teacher of St. Paul, was well versed in Greek 
literature; that this caused uneasiness in his day is probable; 
and indeed the Gemara labours to explain the fact of his 
knowledge of Greek, and apologizes for it.2 Consequently 
Saul, the disciple of Gamaliel, also a Greek scholar, would be 

| likely to incur the same suspicion, as one leaning away from 
strict Judaism towards Gentile culture. 

The Jews of Palestine viewed the Alexandrine Jews with 
dislike, and mistrusted the translation into Greek of their 
sacred books. They said it was a day of sin and blasphemy 
when the version of the Septuagint was made, equal only in 
wickedness to that on which their fathers had made the 
golden calf.? 

[ The loudly-proclaimed intention of Paul to turn to the 
Gentiles, his attitude of hostility towards the Law, the abro- 
| gation of the Sabbath and substitution for it of the Lord’s- 


-day, his denunciation of circumcision, his abandonment of 





| his Jewish name for a Gentile one, led to his being identified 
by the Jews of Palestine with the abhorred Hellenistic party; 
and the Nazarene Christians shared to the full in the national 
prejudices. 


1 Menachoth, fol. 99. 2 Baba-Kama, fol. 63. 
3 Mass. Sopherim, 6, i. in Othonis Lexicon Rabbin. p. 329. 


PREFACE. ΧΙΧ 





The Jews, at the time of the first spread of Christianity, 
were dispersed over the whole world ; and in Greece and Asia 
Minor occupied a quarter, and exercised influence, in every 
town. The Seleucides had given the right of citizenship to 
these Asiatic Jews, and had extended to them some sort of 
protection. The close association of these Jews with Greeks 
necessarily led to the adoption of some of their ideas. Since 
Ezra, the dominant principle of the Palestinian and Babylon- 
ish rabbis had been to create a “hedge of the Law,” to con- 
stitute of the legal prescriptions a net lacing those over whom 
-it was cast with minute yet tough fibres, stifling spontaneity. 
Whilst rabbinism was narrowing the Jewish horizon, Greek 
philosophy was widening man’s range of vision. The ten- 
dencies of Jewish theology and Greek philosophy were radi- 
cally opposed. The Alexandrine Jews never submitted to be 
involved in the meshes of rabbinism. They produced a 
school of thinkers, of whom Aristobulus was the first known 
exponent, and Philo the last expression, which sought to 
combine Mosaism with Platonism, to explain the Pentateuch 
as the foundation of a philosophic system closely related to 
the highest and best theories of the Greeks. 

In the Holy Land, routine, the uniform repetition of pre- 
scribed forms, the absence of all alien currents of thought, 
tended insensibly to transform religion into formalism, and 
to identify it with the ceremonies which are its exterior mani- 
festation. 

In Egypt, on the other hand, the Alexandrine Jews, am- 
bitious to give to the Greeks an exalted idea of their religion, 


strove to bring into prominence its great doctrines of the 


ὦ... 


xX PREFACE. 


Unity of the Godhead, of Creation, and Providence. All se- 
condary points were allegorized or slurred over. As Pales- 
tinian rabbinism became essentially ceremonial, Alexandrine 
Judaism became essentially spiritual. The streams of life 
and thought in these members of the same race were dia- 
metrically opposed. 

The Jews settled in Asia Minor, subjected to the same 
influences, actuated by the same motives, as the Egyptian 
Jews, looked to Alexandria rather than to Jerusalem or 
Babylon for guidance, and were consequently involved in the 
same jealous dislike which fell on the Jews of Egypt.? 

There can be no doubt that St. Paul was acquainted with, 
and influenced by, the views of the Alexandrine school. That 
he had read some of Philo’s works is more than probable. 
How much he drew from the writings of Aristobulus the 
Peripatetic cannot be told, as none of the books of that learned 
but eclectic Jew have been preserved.” 

In more than one point Paul departs from the traditional 
methods of the Palestinian rabbis, to adopt those of the 
Alexandrines. The Jews of Palestine did not admit the 
allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Paul, on two occa- 
sions, follows the Hellenistic mode of allegorizing the sacred 
text. On one of these occasions he uses an allegory of Philo, 
while slightly varying its application.’ 

1 Philo is not mentioned by name once in the Talmud, nor has a single 
sentiment or interpretation of an Alexandrine Jew been admitted into 
the Jerusalem or Babylonish Talmud. 

2 Aristobulus wrote a book to prove that the Greek sages drew their 


philosophy from Moses, and addressed his book to Ptolemy Philometor. 
3 Gal. iv: 24, 25, 


PREFACE. ΧΧῚ 


The Palestinian Jews knew of no seven orders of angels; | 
the classification of the celestial hierarchy was adopted by | 
Paul! from Philo and his school. The identification of idols | 
with demons? was also distinctively Alexandrine. d 

But what is far more remarkable is to find in Philo, born | 
between thirty and forty years before Christ, the key to most 
of Paul’s theology,—the doctrines of the all-sufficiency of 
faith, of the worthlessness of good works, of the imputation 
of righteousness, of grace, mediation, atonement. 

But in Philo these doctrines drift purposeless. Paul took 
them and applied them to Christ, and at once they fell into 
their ranks and places. What was in suspension in Philo, 
erystallized in Paul. What the Baptist was to the Judean — 
Jews, that Philo was to the Hellenistic Jews; his thoughts, 
his theories, were— 


“ΤῊ the flecker’d dawning 
The glitterance of Christ.” 9 

The Fathers, perplexed at finding Pauline words, expressions, 
ideas, in the writings of Philo, and unwilling to admit that 
Paul had derived them from Philo, invented a myth that the 
Alexandrine Jew came to Rome and was there converted to 
the Christian faith. Chronology and a critical examination 
of the writings of the Jewish Plato have burst that bubble.* 

The fact that Paul was deeply saturated with the philo- 
sophy of the Alexandrine Jews has given rise also to two 

1 Col. i. 16. 201 Cor, x. 20. 

3 Dante, Parad. xiv. 


* See the question carefully discussed in M. F. Delaunay’s Moines et 
Sibylles; Paris, 1874, pp. 28 sq. 


ΟΝ 


ee 


XX1L PREFACE. 


obstinate Christian legends,—that Dionysius the Areopagite, 
author of the Celestial Hierarchy, the Divine Names, &c., 
was the disciple of St. Paul, and that Seneca the philosopher 
was also his convert and pupil. Dionysius took Philo’s 
system of the universe and emanations from the Godhead 
and ‘Christianized them. The influence of Philo on the 
system of Dionysius saute aux yeux, as the French would 
say. And Dionysius protests, again and again, in his writings 
that he learned his doctrine from St. Paul. 

From a very early age, the Fathers insisted on Seneca 
having been a convert of St. Paul; they pointed out the 
striking analogies in their writings, the similarity in their 
thoughts. How was this explicable unless one had been the 
pupil of the other? But Seneca, we know, lived some time 
in Alexandria with his uncle, Severus, prefect of Egypt; and 
at that time the young Roman, there can be little question, 
became acquainted with the writings of Philo.! 

Thus St. Paul, by adopting the mode of Biblical interpre- 
tation of a rival school to that dominant in Judea, by absorb- 
ing its philosophy, applying it to the person of Christ and 
the moral governance of the Church, by associating with 
Asiatic Jews, known to be infected with Greek philosophic 
heresies, and by his open invocation to the Gentiles to come 
into and share in all the plenitude of the privileges of the 
gospel, incurred the suspicion, distrust, dislike of the believers 
in Jerusalem, who had grown up in the midst of national pre- 
judices which Paul shocked. 


1 See, on this curious topic, C. Aubertin: Sénéque et St. Paul ; Paris, 
1872. 


PREFACE. XX 





3. It has been argued with much plausibility, that because 


certain of the primitive Fathers were unacquainted with the 


four Gospels now accounted Canonical, that therefore those 


Gospels are compositions subsequent to their date, and that 
therefore also their authority as testimonies to the acts and 
sayings of Jesus is sensibly weakened, if not wholly over- 
thrown. It is true that there were certain Fathers of the first 
two centuries who were unacquainted with our Gospels, but 
the above conclusions drawn from this fact are unsound. 

This treatise will, I hope, establish the fact that at the 


close of the first century almost every Church had its own | 


Gospel, with which alone it was acquainted. But it does not 
follow that these Gospels were not as trustworthy, as genuine 
tecords, as the four which we now alone recognize. 

It is possible, from what has been preserved of some of 
these lost Gospels, to form an estimate of their scope and 
character. We find that they bore a very close resemblance 
to the extant Synoptical Gospels, though they. were by no 
means identical with them. 

We find that they contained most of what exists in our | 


three first Evangels, in exactly the same words; but that 


powe 


some were fuller, others less complete, than the accepted | 


Synoptics. 

If we discover whole paragraphs absolutely identical in the 
Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, of the Hebrews, of the 
Clementines, of the Lord, it goes far to prove that all the 
Evangelists drew upon a common fund. And if we see that, 


though using the same material, they arranged it differently, 


ΧΧΙΥ͂ PREFACE. 





we are forced to the conclusion that this material they incor- 
porated in their biographies existed in anecdota, not in a 
consecutive narrative. 

Some, at least, of the Gospels were in existence at the 
close of the first century ; but the documents of which they 
were composed were then old and accepted. 

And though it is indisputable that in the second century 
the Four had not acquired that supremacy which brought 
about the disappearance of the other Gospels, and were there- 
fore not quoted by the Fathers in preference to them, it is 
also certain that all the material out of which both the extant 
and the lost Synoptics were composed was then in existence, 
and was received in the Church as true and canonical. 

Admitting fully the force of modern Biblical criticism, I 
cannot admit all its most sweeping conclusions, for they are 
often, I think, more sweeping than just. 

The material out of which all the Synoptical Gospels, 
extant or lost, were composed, was in existence and in circu- 
lation in the Churches in the first century. That material 
is—the sayings of Christ on various occasions, and the inci- 
dents in his life. These sayings and doings of the Lord, I 
see no reason to doubt, were written down from the mouths 
of apostles and eye-witnesses, in order that the teaching and 
example of Christ might be read to believers in every Church 
during the celebration of the Eucharist. 

The early Church followed with remarkable fidelity the 
_ customs of the Essenes, so faithfully that, as I have shown, 


| Josephus mistook the Nazarenes for members of the Essene 


Ji 
Philo’s account of the Therapeute, and argues that these Alexandrine Jews 


PREFACE. XXV 


sect ; and in the third century Eusebius was convinced that 
the Therapeute, their Egyptian counterparts, were actually 


primitive Christians. 


ἤν ὦ 


The Essenes assembled on the Sabbath for a solemn feast, 
in white robes, and, with faces turned to the East, sang 
antiphonal hymns, broke bread and drank together of the 
cup of love. During this solemn celebration the president 
read portions from the sacred Scriptures, and the exhorta- 
tions of the elders. At the Christian Eucharist the cere- 


1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 17. The Bishop of Cesarea is quoting from 


must have been Christians, because their manner of life, religious customs 
and doctrines, were identical with those of Christians. ‘‘ Their meetings, 
the distinction of the sexes at these meetings, the religious exercises per- 
formed at them, are still in vogue among us at the present day, and, 
especially at the commemoration of the Saviour’s passion, we, like them, 
pass the time in fasting and vigil, and in the study of the divine word. 
All these the above-named author (Philo) has accurately described in his 
writings, and are the same customs that are observed by us alone, at the 
present day, particularly the vigils of the great Feast, and the exercises 
in them, and the hymns that are commonly recited among us. He states 
that, whilst one sings gracefully with a certain measure, the others, listening 
in silence, join in at the final clauses of the hymns; also that, on the 
above-named days, they lie on straw spread on the ground, and, to use his 
own words, abstain altogether from wine and from flesh. Water is their 
only drink, and the relish of their bread salt and hyssop. Besides this, he 
describes the grades of dignity among those who administer the ecclesi- 
astical functions committed to them, those of deacons, and the presidencies 
of the episcopate as the highest. Therefore,’ Eusebius concludes, ‘‘it is 
obvious to all that Philo, when he wrote these statements, had in view the 
Jjirst heralds of the gospel, and the original practices handed down from 
the apostles.” 


Ps, 
“νιν. «PREFACE. 


JS 





monial was identical ;! Pliny’s description of a Christian 
assembly might be a paragraph from Josephus or Philo 
describing an Essene or Therapeutic celebration. In place of 
the record of the wanderings of the Israelites and the wars of 
their kings being read at their conventions, the president read 
the journeys of the Lord, his discourses and miracles. 

No sooner was a Church founded by an apostle than there 
' rose a demand for this sort of instruction, and it was sup- 
plied by the jottings-down of reminiscences of the Lord and 

his teaching, orally given by those who had companied with 

hin. 

Thus there sprang into existence an abundant crop of 
memorials of the Lord, surrounded by every possible guarantee 
of their truth. And these fragmentary records passed from 
one Church to another. The pious zeal of an Antiochian 
community furnished with the memorials of Peter would 
borrow of Jerusalem the memorials of James and Matthew. 
One of the traditions of John found its way into the Hebrew 
Gospel—that of the visit of Nicodemus ; but it never came 
into the possession of the compiler of the first Gospel or of 
St. Luke. 

After a while, each Church set to work to string the anec- 
dota it possessed into a consecutive story, and thus the 


Synoptical Gospels came into being. 


\\ 1 It is deserving of remark that the turning to the East for prayer, 
\common to the Essenes and primitive Christians, was forbidden by the 
| Mosaic Law and denounced by prophets. When the Essenes diverged from 
lthe Law, the Christians followed their lead. 


PREFACE. ΧΧΥ 

Of these, some were more complete than others, some were 
composed of more unique material than the others. 

The second Gospel, if we may trust Papias, and I see no 
reason for doubting his testimony, is the composition of 
Mark, the disciple of St. Peter, and consists exclusively of 
the recollections of St. Peter. This Gospel was not co-ordi- 
nated probably till late, till long after the disjomted memo- 
rabilia were in circulation. It first circulated in Egypt; but 
in at least one of the Petrine Churches—that of Rhossus— 
the recollections of St. Peter had already been arranged in a 
consecutive memoir, and, in A.D. 190, Serapion, Bishop of 
Antioch, found the Church of Rhossus holding exclusively to 
this book as a Gospel of traditional authority, received from 
the prince of the apostles. 

The Gospel of St. Matthew, on the other hand, is a diates- 
saron composed of four independent collections of memora- 
bilia. Its groundwork is a book by Matthew the apostle, 
a collection of the discourses of the Lord. Whether Mat- 
thew wrote also a collection of the acts of the Lord, or con- 
tributed disconnected anecdotes of the Lord to Churches of 
his founding, and these were woven in with his work on the 
Lord’s discourses, is possible, but is conjectural only. 

But what is clear is, that into the first Gospel was incorpo- ᾿ 
rated much, not all, of the material used by Mark for the 
construction of his Gospel, viz. the recollections of St. ‘Peter. 
That the first evangelist did not merely amplify the Mark 
Gospel appears from his arranging the order of his anec- 


dotes differently ; that he did use the same “anecdota” is 


XXVU1 PREFACE. 





evidenced by the fact of his using them often word for 
word. | 

The Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel quoted in the 
Clementines were composed in precisely the same manner, 
and of the same materials, but not of all the same. 

That the Gospel of St. Matthew, as it stands, was the 
composition of that apostle, cannot be seriously maintained ; 
yet its authority as a record of facts, not as a record of their 
chronological sequence, remains undisturbed. 

The Gospel of St. Luke went, apparently, through two 
editions. After the issue of his original Gospel, which, 
there is reason to believe, is that adopted by Marcion, fresh 
material came into his hands, and he revised and amplified 
his book. 

That this second edition was not the product of another 
hand, is shown by the fact that characteristic expressions 
found in the original text occur also in the additions. 

The Pauline character of the Luke Gospel has been fre- 
quently commented on. It is curious to observe how much 
more pronounced this was in the first edition. The third 
Gospel underwent revision under the influence of the same 
wave of feeling which moved Luke to write the Christian 
Odyssey, the Acts, nominally of the Apostles, really of St. 
Paul. With the imprisonment of Paul the tide turned, and 
a reconciliatory movement set strongly in. Into this the 
Apostle of Love threw himself, and he succeeded in direct- 
ing it. 


The Apostolic Church was a well-spring tumultuously 


᾿ PREFACE. ΧΧΙΧ 


gushing forth its superabundance of living waters ; there was 
a clashing of jets, a conflict of ripples ; but directly St. John 
gave to it its definite organization, the flood rushed out 
between these banks, obedient to a common impulse, the 
clashing forces produced a resultant, the conflicting ripples 
blended into rhythmic waves, and the brook became a river, 
and the river became a sea. “ 

The lost Gospels are no mere literary curiosity, the .exami- 
nation of them no barren study. They furnish us with most 
precious information on the manner in which all the Gospels 
were compiled ; they enable us in several instances to deter- 
mine the correct reading in our canonical Matthew and Luke; 
they even supply us with particulars to fill lacunz which 
exist, or have been made, in our Synoptics. 

The poor stuff that has passed current too long among us as 
Biblical criticism is altogether unworthy of English scholars 
and theologians. The great shafts that have been driven into 
Christian antiquity, the mines that have been opened by the 
patient labours of German students, have not received suffi- 
cient attention at our hands. If some of our commentators 
timorously venture to their mouths, it is only to shrink 
back again scared at the gnomes their imagination pictures as 
haunting those recesses, or at the abysses down which they 
may be precipitated, that they suppose lie open in those 
passages. 

This spirit is neither courageous nor honest. God’s truth 
is helped by no man’s ignorance. 

It may be that we are dazzled, bewildered by the light and 


XXX PREFACE. 


rush of new ideas exploding around us on every side; but, 
for all that, a cellar is no safe retreat. The vault will 
crumble in and bury us. 

The new lights that break in on us are not always the 


lanterns of burglars. 


I must ask the reader kindly to correct an error which 
escaped my eye in correcting the proofs of the first three 
sheets. On page 1, and in the heading of every even page 
up to 72, for “‘ Ante-Gospels,” read “ Anti-Gospels.” 


5. Barinc-GouLp. 


East MersEa, CoLcHEsTER, 
November 2nd, 1874. 


CONTENTS 


Part Fist. 
THE JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 
PAGE 
I.—The Silence of Josephus. : : ; : ae ted 
II.—The Cause of the Silence of Josephus. : : 12 
111.--ΤῊ 6 Jew οἵ Celsus_. : : : ; . 43 
IV.—The Talmud . : : : : : 50 
V.—The Counter-Gospels . : : : - : mo OR 
VI.—The First Toledoth Jeschu. : : ; 76 
Vil.—The Second Toledoth Jeschu.. : : ; ~ 102 
Put Second. 
THE LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 
].—The Gospel of the Hebrews . : : : > EES 
IJ.—The Clementine Gospel ὌΝ : Ε - 105 
.I1I.—The Gospel of St. Peter . : ς : 910 


IV.—The Gospel of the Egyptians... si wg. Teese 


XXXll CONTENTS. 


Part Third. 


THE LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


PAGE 
I.—The Gospel of the Lord. 4 : : : . 235 
II.—The Gospel of Truth . Σ : ; : . ae 
III.—The Gospel of Eve. : ; 4 ς : . 286 
IV.—The Gospel of Perfection : ; ; : . oe 
V.—The Gospel of Philip . : : : : : . 293 


Vi.—tThe Gospel of Judas. eres : : . | eae 


THE 


LOST AND HOSTILE GOSPELS. 


PART: 1 
THE JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


Τ' 
THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 


It is somewhat remarkable that no contemporary, or 
even early, account of the life of our Lord exists, except 
from the pens of Christian writers. 

That we have none by Roman or Greek writers is 
not, perhaps, to be wondered at; but it is singular that 
neither Philo, Josephus, nor Justus of Tiberias, should 
have ever alluded to Christ or to primitive Christianity. 

The cause of this silence we shall presently investi- 
gate. Its existence we must first prove. 

Philo was born at Alexandria about ea: years 
before Christ. In the year A.D. 40, he was sent by the 
Alexandrine Jews on a mission to Caligula, to entreat 
the Emperor not to put in force his order that his statue 
should be erected in the Temple of Jerusalem and in ail 
the synagogues of the Jews. 

Philo was a Pharisee. He travelled in Palestine, and 
speaks of the Essenes he saw there; but he says not a 

B 


2 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


word about Jesus Christ or his followers. It is possible 
that he may have heard of the new sect, but he pro- 
bably concluded it was but insignificant, and consisted 
merely of the disciples, poor and ignorant, of a Galilean 
Rabbi, whose doctrines he, perhaps, did not stay to in- 
quire into, and supposed that they did not differ funda- 
mentally from the traditional teaching of the rabbis of 
his day. 

Flavius Josephus was born A.D. 37—consequently 
only four years after the death of our Lord—at Jeru- 
salem. ‘Till the age of twenty-nine, he lived in Jeru- 
salem, and had, therefore, plenty of opportunity of 
learning about Christ and early Christianity. 

In A.D. 67, Josephus became governor of Galilee, on 
the occasion of the Jewish insurrection against the 
Roman domination. After the fall of Jerusalem he 
passed into the service of Titus, went to Rome, where 
he rose to honour in the household of Vespasian and of 
Titus, A.D. 81. The year of his death is not known 
He was alive in A.D. 93, for his biography is carried 
down to that date. 

Josephus wrote at Rome his “ History of the Jewish 
War,” in seven books, in his own Aramaic language. 
This he finished in the year A.D. 75, and then trans- 
lated it into Greek. On the completion of this work he 
wrote his “Jewish Antiquities,” a history of the Jews 
in twenty books, from the beginning of the world to the 
twelfth year of the reign of Nero, A.D. 66. He com- 
pleted this work in the year A.D. 93, concluding it with 
a biography of himself. He also wrote a book against 
Apion on the antiquity of the Jewish people. A book in 
praise of the Maccabees has been attributed to him, but 
without justice. In the first of these works, the larger 
of the two, the “ History of the Jewish War,” he treats 
of the very period when our Lord lived, and in it he 


SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 3 


makes no mention of him. But in the shorter work, 
the “ Jewish Antiquities,’ in which he goes over briefly 
the same period of time treated of at length in the other 
work, we find this passage : 


- 


“At this time lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed he ought 
to be called a man]; for he performed wonderful works [he 
was a teacher of men who received the truth with gladness] ; 
and he drew to him many Jews, and also many Greeks. 
[This was the Christ.] But when Pilate, at the instigation 
of our chiefs, had condemned him to crucifixion, they who 
had at first loved him did not cease; [for he appeared to 
them on the third day again alive ; for the divine prophets 
had foretold this, together with many other wonderful things 
concerning him], and even to this time the community of 
Christians, called after him, continues to exist.” + 


That this passage is spurious has been almost univer- 
sally acknowledged. One may be, perhaps, accused of 
killing dead birds, if one again examines and discredits 
the passage; but as the silence of Josephus on the sub- 
ject which we are treating is a point on which it will be 
necessary to insist, we cannot omit as brief a discussion 
as possible of this celebrated passage. 

The passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A.D. 315) 
in two places,? but it was unknown to Justin Martyr 
(fi. A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A.D. 192), 


1 Myera δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον ᾿Ιησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνὴρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα 
αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητὴς, διδάσκαλος 
ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ T ἀληϑῆ δεχομένων" καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν ᾿Ιουδαίους, 
πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο. Ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. Καὶ 
αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος 
Πιλάτου, οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἵ γε πρῶτον αὐτὸν ἀγαπήσαντες" ἐφάνη γαρ 
αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν ϑείων προφητῶν ταῦτά 
τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία ϑαυμάσια περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων" εἰς ἔτι νῦν τῶν 
χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλίπε τὸ φῦλον.---Τὰρ, xviii. 
Cigit.t ὃ: 

2 Hist. Eccl. lib. i. 6. 11; Demonst. Evang. lib. iii. 

B 2 


4 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 





Tertullian (fl. A.D. 193), and Origen (fl. A.D. 230). Such 
a testimony would certainly have been produced by 
Justin in his Apology, or in his Controversy with 
Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Jose- 
phus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more 
significant. Celsus in his book against Christianity 
introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the arguments of 
Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote 
the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had 
the passage existed in the genuine text. 

Again, the paragraph interrupts the chain of ideas in 
the original text. Before this passage comes an account 
of how Pilate, seeing there was a want of pure drinking 
water in Jerusalem, conducted a stream into the city 
from a spring 200 stadia distant, and ordered that the 
cost should be defrayed out of the treasury of the 
Temple. This occasioned a riot. Pilate disguised 
Roman soldiers as Jews, with swords under their cloaks, 
and sent them among the rabble, with orders to arrest 
the ringleaders. 

This was done. The Jews finding themselves set 
upon by other Jews, fell into confusion; one Jew at- 
tacked another, and the whole company of rioters melted 
away. “And in this manner,” says Josephus, “was this 
insurrection suppressed.” Then follows the paragraph 
about Jesus, beginning, “At this time lived Jesus, a 
wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man,” το. 

And the passage is immediately followed by, “About 
this time another misfortune threw the Jews into dis- 
turbance; and in Rome an event happened in the 
temple of Isis which produced great scandal.’ And 
then he tells an indelicate story of religious deception 
which need not be repeated here. The misfortune 


1 He indeed distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ, 
Contr. Cels. 1. 


SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 5 


which befel the Jews was, as he afterwards relates, that 
Tiberius drove them out of Rome. The reason of this 
was, he says, that a noble Roman lady who had become 
a proselyte had sent gold and purple to the temple at 
Jerusalem. But this reason is not sufficient. It is 
clear from what,precedes—a story of sacerdotal fraud— 
that there was some connection between the incidents 
in the mind of Josephus. Probably the Jews had been 
guilty of religious deceptions in Rome, and had made a 
business of performing cures and expelling demons, with 
talismans and incantations, and for this had obtained 
rich payment.* 

From the connection that exists between the passage 
about the “other misfortune that befel the Jews” and 
the former one about the riot suppressed by Pilate, it 
appears evident that the whole of the paragraph con- 
cerning our Lord is an interpolation. 

That Josephus could not have written the passage as 
it stands, is clear enough, for only a Christian would 
speak of Jesus in the terms employed. Josephus was 
a Pharisee and a Jewish priest; he shows in all his 
writings that he believes in Judaism. 

It has been suggested that Josephus may have 
written about Christ as in the passage quoted, but that 
the portions within brackets are the interpolations of 
a Christian copyist. But when these portions within 
brackets are removed, the passage loses all its interest, 
and is a dry statement utterly unlike the sort of notice 
Josephus would have been likely to insert. He gives 
colour to his narratives, his incidents are always sketched 


1 Juvenal, Satir. vi. 546. ‘* Aere minuto qualiacunque voles Judi 
somnia vendunt.” The Emperors, later, issued formal laws against those 
who charmed away diseases (Digest. lib, i. tit. 13, i. 1). Josephus tells 
the story of Eleazar dispossessing a demon by incantations. De Bello Jud. 
lib, vii. 6 ; Antiq. lib. viii. ὁ, 2. 


6 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 





with vigour; this account would be meagre beside those 
of the riot of the Jews and the rascality of the priests 
of Isis. Josephus asserts, moreover, that in his time 
there were four sects among the Jews—the Pharisees, 
the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the sect of Judas of 
Gamala. He gives tolerably copious particulars about 
these sects and their teachings, but of the Christian sect 
he says not a word. Had he wished to write about it, 
he would have given full details, likely to interest his 
readers, and not have dismissed the subject in a couple 
of lines. 

It was perhaps felt by the early Christians that the 
silence of Josephus—so famous an historian, and a Jew 
—on the life, miracles and death of the Founder of 
Christianity, was extremely inconvenient ; the fact 
could not fail to be noticed by their adversaries. Some 
Christian transcriber may have argued, Either Josephus 
knew nothing of the miracles performed by Christ,—in 
which case he is a weighty testimony against them,—or 
he must have heard of Jesus, but not have deemed his 
acts, as they were related to him, of sufficient importance 
to find a place in his History. Arguing thus, the copyist 
took the opportunity of rectifying the omission, written 
from the standpoint of a Pharisee, and therefore desig- 
nating the Lord as merely a wise man. 

But there is another explanation of this interpolation, 
which will hardly seem credible to the reader at this 
stage of the examination, viz. that it was inserted by a 
Pharisee after the destruction of Jerusalem; and this is 
the explanation I am inclined to adopt. At that time 
there was a mutual tendency to sink their differences, 
and unite, in the Nazarene Church and the Jews. The 
cause of this will be given further on ; sufficient for our 
purpose that such a tendency did exist. Both Jew and 
Nazarene were involved in the same exile, crushed by 


SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 7 





the same blow, united in the same antipathies. The 
Pharisees were disposed to regret the part they had 
taken in putting Jesus to death, and to acknowledge 
that he had been a good and great Rabbi. The Jewish | 
Nazarenes, on their side, made no exalted claims for the 
Lord as being the incarnate Son of God, and later even, 
as we learn from the Clementine Homilies, refused to 
admit his divinity. The question dividing the Nazarene 
from the Jew gradually became one of whether Christ 
was to be recognized as a prophet or not; and the Phari- 
sees, or some of them at least, were disposed to allow 
as much as this. 

It was under this conciliatory feeling that I think it 
probable the interpolation was made, at first by a Jew, 
but afterwards it was amplified by a Christian. I think 
this probable, from the fact of its not being the only 
interpolation of the sort effected. Suidas has an article 
on the name “Jesus,” in which he tells us that Josephus 
mentions him, and says that he sacrificed with the priests 
in the temple. He quoted from an interpolated copy of 
Josephus, and this interpolation could not have been 
made by either a Gentile or a Nazarene Christian: not 
by a Gentile, for such a statement would have been 
pointless, purposeless to him; and it could not have 
been made by a Nazarene, for the Nazarenes, as will 
presently be shown, were strongly opposed to the sacri- 
ficial system in the temple. The interpolation must 
therefore have been made by a Jew, and by a Jew with 
a conciliatory purpose. 

It is curious to note the use made of the interpolation 
now found in the text. Eusebius, after quoting it, says, 
“When such testimony as this is transmitted to us by 
an historian who sprang from the Hebrews themselves, 
respecting John the Baptist and the Saviour, what sub- 


8 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


terfuge can be left them to prevent them from being 
covered with confusion ?” + 

There is one other mention of Christ in the “ Antiqui- 
ties” (lib. xx. c. 9): 


“ Ananus, the younger, of whom I have related that he 
had obtained the office of high-priest, was of a rash and 
daring character ; he belonged to the sect of the Sadducees, 
which, as I have already remarked, exhibited especial severity 
in the discharge of justice. Being of such a character, Ananus 
thought the time when Festus was dead, and Albinus was 
yet upon the road, a fit opportunity for calling a council of 
judges, and for bringing before them James, the brother of 
him who is called Christ, and some others: he accused them 
as transgressors of the law, and had them stoned to death. 
But the most moderate men of the city, who also were 
reckoned most learned in the law, were offended at this pro- 
ceeding. They therefore sent privately to the king (Agrippa 
II.), entreating him to send orders to Ananus not to attempt 
such a thing again, for he had no right to doit. And some 
went to meet Albinus, then coming from Alexandria, and put 
him in mind that Ananus was not justified, without his con- 
sent, in assembling a court of justice. Albinus, approving 
what they said, angrily wrote to Ananus, and threatened him 
with punishment; and king Agrippa took from him his office 
of high-priest, and gave it to Jesus, the son of Donnzeus.” 


This passage is also open to objection. 

According to Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian, who 
wrote a History of the Church about the year A.D. 170, 
of which fragments have been preserved by Eusebius, 
St. James was killed in a tumult, and not by sentence 
of a court. He relates that James, the brother of Jesus, 
was thrown down from a wing of the temple, stoned, 
and finally despatched with a fuller’s club. Clement of 


1 Hist. Eccl. i, 11. 


SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 9 





Alexandria confirms this, and is quoted by Eusebius 
accordingly. 

Eusebius quotes the passage from Josephus, without 
noticing that the two accounts do not agree. According 
to the statement of Hegesippus, St. James suffered 
alone; according to that of Josephus, several other 
victims to the anger or zeal of Ananus perished with 
him. | | 

It appears that some of the copies of Josephus were 
tampered with by copyists, for Theophylact says, “ The 
wrath of God fell on them (the Jews) when their city 
was taken; and Josephus testifies that these things 
happened to them on account of the death of Jesus.” 
But Origen, speaking of Josephus, says, “This writer, 
though he did not believe Jesus to be the Christ, in- 
quiring into the cause of the overthrow of Jerusalem 
and the demolition of the temple... . says, ‘These 
things befel the Jews in vindication of James, called the 
Just, who was the brother of Jesus, called the Christ, 
forasmuch as they killed him who was a most righteous 
man. ”+ Josephus, as we have seen, says nothing of 
the sort; consequently Origen must have quoted from 
an interpolated copy. And this interpolation suffered 
further alteration, by a later hand, by the substitution 
of the name of Jesus for that of James. 

It is therefore by no means unlikely that the name of 
James, the Lord’s brother, may have been inserted in the 
account of the high-handed dealing of Ananus in place 
of another name. 

However, it is by no means impossible to reconcile 


1 Contr. Cels. i. 47; and again, ii. 13: ‘ This (destruction), as Jose- 
phus writes, ‘happened upon account of James the Just, the brother of 
Jesus, called the Christ ;’ but in truth on account of Christ Jesus, the 
Son of God.” 

BS 


10 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


the two accounts. The martyrdom of St. James is an 
historical fact, and it is likely to have taken place 
during the time when Ananus had the power in his 
hands. 

For fifty years the pontificate had been in the same 
family, with scarcely an interruption, and Ananus, or 
Hanan, was the son of Annas, who had condemned 
Christ. They were Sadducees, and as such were per- 
secuting. St. Paul, by appealing to his Pharisee prin- 
ciples, enlisted the members of that faction in his favour 
when brought before Ananias. 

The apostles based their teaching on the Resurrec- 
tion, the very doctrine most repugnant to the Saddu- 
cees ; and their accounts of visions of angels repeated 
among the people must have irritated the dominant 
faction who denied the existence of these spirits. It 
can hardly be matter of surprise that the murder of 
James should have taken place when Ananus was 
supreme in Jerusalem. If that were the case, Jose- 
phus no doubt mentioned James, and perhaps added 
the words, “The brother of him who is called Christ ;” 
or these words may have been inserted by a transcriber 
in place of “of Sechania,” or Bar-Joseph. 

This is all that Josephus says, or is thought to have 
said, about Jesus and the early Christians. 

At the same time as Josephus, there lived another 
Jewish historian, Justus of Tiberias, whom Josephus 
mentions, and blames for not having published his 
History of the Wars of the Jews during the life of 
Vespasian and Titus. St. Jerome includes Justus in his 
Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, and Stephen of By- 
zantium mentions him. 

His book, or books, have unfortunately been lost, but 


1 Acts xxiil. 


SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 11 


Photius had read his History, and was surprised to find 
that he, also, made no mention of Christ. “This 
Jewish historian,” says he, “ does not make the smallest 
mention of the appearance of Christ, and says nothing 
whatever of his deeds and miracles.”? 


1 Bibliothec. cod. 33. 


1 
THE CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 


IT is necessary to inquire, Why this silence of Philo, 
Josephus and Justus? at first so inexplicable. 

It can only be answered by laying before the reader a 
picture of the Christian Church in the first century. A 
critical examination of the writings of the first age of 
the Church reveals unexpected disclosures. 

1. It shows us that the Church at Jerusalem, and 
throughout Palestine and Asia Minor, composed of con- 
verted Jews, was to an external observer indistinguish- 
able from a modified Essenism. 

2. And that the difference between the Gentile 
Church founded by St. Paul, and the Nazarene Church 
under St. James and St. Peter, was greater than that 
which separated the latter from Judaism externally, so 
that to a superficial observer their inner connection was 
unsuspected. 

This applies to the period from the Ascension to the 
close of the first century,—to the period, that is, in 
which Josephus and Justus lived, and about which 
they wrote. 

1. Our knowledge of the Essenes and their doctrines 
is, unfortunately, not as full as we could wish. We 
are confined to the imperfect accounts of them fur- 
nished by Philo and Josephus, neither of whom knew 
them thoroughly, or was initiated into their secret 
doctrines. 

The Essenes arose about two centuries before the birth 


CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 18 


of Christ, and peopled the quiet deserts on the west of 
the Dead Sea, a wilderness to which the Christian monks 
afterwards seceded from the cities of Palestine. They 
are thus described by the elder Pliny: 


“On the western shore of that lake dwell the Essenes, at 
a sufficient distance from the water’s edge to escape its pesti- 
lential exhalations—a race entirely unique, and, beyond 
every other in the world, deserving of wonder; men living 
among palm-trees, without wives, without money. Every 
day their number is replenished by a new troop of settlers, 
for those join them who have been visited by the reverses of 
forttine, who are tired of the world and its style of living. 
Thus happens what might seem incredible, that a community 
in which no one is born continues to subsist through the 
lapse of centuries.” 4 


From this first seat of the Essenes colonies detached 
themselves, and settled in other parts of Palestine; they 
settled not only in remote and solitary places, but in 
the midst of villages and towns. In Samaria they 
flourished. According to Josephus, some of the Essenes 
were willing to act as magistrates, and it is evident that 
such as lived in the midst of society could not have fol- 
lowed the strict rule imposed on the solitaries. There 
must therefore have been various degrees of Essenism, 
some severer, more exclusive than the others; and Jose- 
phus distinguishes four such classes in the sect. Some 
of the Essenes remained celibates, others married. The - 
more exalted and exclusive Essenes would not touch one 
of the more lax brethren.? 


1 Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 17 ; Epiphan. adv. Heres. xix. 1. 
2 Epiphan. adv. Heres. x. 


3 For information on the Essenes, the authorities are, Philo, ΠΠερὲ τοῦ 
πάντα σπουδαῖον εἶναι ἐλεύθερον, and Josephus, De Bello Judaico, and 
Antiq. 


14 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


The Essenes had a common treasury, formed by 
throwing together the property of such as entered into 
the society, and by the earnings of each man’s labour.’ 

They wore simple habits—only such clothing as was 
necessary for covering nakedness and giving protection 
from the cold or heat.? 

They forbad oaths, their conversation being “ yea, yea, 
and nay, nay.” ὃ 

Their diet was confined to simple nourishing food, 
and they abstained from delicacies.* 

They exhibited the greatest respect for the constituted 
authorities, and refrained from taking any part in the 
political intrigues, or sharing in the political jealousies, 
which were rife among the Jews. 

They fasted, and were incessant at prayer, but with- 
out the ostentation that marked the Pharisees.’ 

They seem to have greatly devoted themselves to the 
cure of diseases, and, if we may trust the derivation of 
their name given by Josephus, they were called Essenes 
from their being the healers of men’s minds and 
bodies.’ 

If now we look at our blessed Lord’s teaching, we 
find in it much in common with that of the Essenes. 
The same insisting before the multitude on purity of 
thought, disengagement of affections from the world, 
disregard of wealth and clothing and delicate food, pur- 
suit of inward piety instead of ostentatious formalism. 


1 Compare Luke x. 4; John xii. 6, xiii. 29; Matt. xix. 21; Acts ii. 
44, 45, iv. 32, 34, 37. 

2 Compare Matt. vi. 23—34 ; Luke xii. 22—30. 

3 Compare Matt. v. 34. 

Compare Matt. vi. 25, 31 ; Luke xii. 22, 23. 

5 Compare Matt. xv. 15—22. 

® Compare Matt. vi. 1—18. 

7 From SON, meaning the same as the Greek Therapeute. 


CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 15 


His miracles of healing also, to the ordinary observer, 
served to identify him with the sect which made healing 
the great object of their study. 

But these were not the only points of connection be- 
tween him and the Essenes. The Essenes, instead of 
holding the narrow prejudices of the Jews against Sama- 
ritans and Gentiles, extended their philanthropy to all. 
They considered that all men had been made in the 
image of God, that all were rational beings, and that 
therefore God’s care was not confined to the Jewish 
nation, salvation was not limited to the circumci- 
sion.’ 

The Essenes, moreover, exhibited a peculiar venera- 
tion for light. It was their daily custom to turn their 
faces devoutly towards the rising of the sun, and to 
chant hymns addressed to that luminary, purporting 
that his beams ought to fall on nothing impure. 

If we look at the Gospels, we cannot fail to note how 
incessantly Christ recurs in his teaching to light as the 
symbol of the truth he taught, as that in which his dis- 
ciples were to walk, of which they were to be children, 
which they were to strive to obtain in all its purity and 
brilliancy. 

The Essenes, moreover, had their esoteric doctrine; to 
the vulgar they had an exoteric teaching on virtue and 
disregard of the world, whilst among themselves they 
had a secret lore, of which, unfortunately, we know 
nothing certain. In like manner, we find our Lord 
speaking in parables to the multitude, and privately 
revealing their interpretation to his chosen disciples. 
“Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the 
kingdom of God, but to others in parables ; that seeing 


1 Compare Luke x. 25—37 ; Mark vii. 26. 
ΣΟ Matt. iv. 16, v. 14, 16, vi. 22; Luke ii. 32, viii. 16, xi. 23, xvi. 8 
John i. 4—9, 111, 19—21, viii. 12, ix. 5, xi. 9, 10, xii. 35—46. 


10 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


they might not see, and hearing they might not under- 
stand.” + 

The Clementines, moreover, preserve a saying of our 
Lord, contained in the Gospel in use among the Ebio- 
nites, “ Keep the mysteries for me, and for the sons of 
my house.” 2 

The Essenes, though showing great veneration for the 
Mosaic law, distinguished between its precepts, for some 
they declared were interpolations, and did not belong to 
the original revelation ; all the glosses and traditions of 
the Rabbis they repudiated, as making the true Word of 
none effect.2 Amongst other things that they rejected 
was the sacrificial system of the Law. They regarded 
this with the utmost horror, and would not be present at 
any of the sacrifices. They sent gifts to the Temple, but 
never any beast, that its blood might be shed. ΤῸ the 
ordinary worship of the Temple, apart from the sacrifices, 
they do not seem to have objected. The Clementine 
Homilies carry us into the very heart of Ebionite Chris- 
tianity in the second, if not the first century, and show 
us what was the Church of St. James and St. Peter, the 
Church of the Circumcision, with its peculiarities and 
prejudices intensified by isolation and opposition. In 
that curious book we find the same hostility to the sacri- 
ficial system of Moses, the same abhorrence of blood- 
shedding in the service of God. This temper of mind 
can only be an echo of primitive Nazarene Christianity, 
for in the second century the Temple and its sacrifices 
were no more. 

Primitive Jewish Christianity, therefore, reproduced 
what was an essential feature of Essenism—a rejection 
of the Mosaic sacrifices. 

1 Luke viii. 10 ; Mark iv. 12 ; Matthew xiii. 11—15. 


2 Clem. Homil. xix. 20. 
3 Compare Matt. xv. 3, 6. 


CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. Τῷ 


In another point Nazarene Christianity resembled 
Essenism, in the poverty of its members, their simplicity 
in dress and in diet, their community of goods. This 
we learn from Hegesippus, who represents St. James, 
Bishop of Jerusalem, as truly an ascetic as any medieval 
monk; and from the Clementines, which make St. Peter 
feed on olives and bread only, and wear but one coat. 
The name of Ebionite, which was given to the Naza- 
renes, signified “the poor.” 

There was one point more of resemblance, or possible 
resemblance, but this was one not likely to be observed 
by those without. The Therapeutze in Egypt, who were 
apparently akin to the Essenes in Palestine, at their 
sacred feasts ate bread and salt. Salt seems to have 
been regarded by them with religious superstition, as 
being an antiseptic, and symbolical of purity.’ 

Perhaps the Essenes of Judea also thus regarded, and 
ceremonially used, salt. We have no proof, it is true; 
but it is not improbable. 

Now one of the peculiarities of the Ebionite Church 
in Palestine, as revealed to us by the Clementines, was 
the use of salt with the bread in their celebrations of 
the Holy Communion? 

But if Christ and the early Church, by their teaching 
and practice, conformed closely in many things to the 
doctrine and customs of the Essenes, in some points 
they differed from them. The Essenes were strict Sab- 
batarians. On the seventh day they would not move a 
vessel from one place to another, or satisfy any of the 
wants of nature, Even the sick and dying, rather than 


1 The reference to salt as an illustration by Christ (Matt. v. 13; Mark 
ix. 49, 50 ; Luke xiv. 34) deserves to be noticed in connection with this. 

2 Clem. Homil. xiv. 1: ‘‘ Peter came several hours after, and breaking 
bread for the Eucharist, and putting salt upon it, gave it first to our 
mother, and after her, to us, her sons.” 


18 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


break the Sabbath, abstained from meat and drink on 
that day. Christ’s teaching was very different from this; 
he ate, walked about, taught, and performed miracles on 
the Sabbath. But though he relaxed the severity of ob- 
servance, he did not abrogate the institution; and the 
Nazarene Church, after the Ascension, continued to vene- 
rate and observe the Sabbath as of divine appointment. 
The observance of the Lord’s-day was apparently due 
to St. Paul alone, and sprang up in the Gentile churches? 
in Asia Minor and Greece of his founding. When the 
churches of Peter and Paul were reconciled and fused 
together at the close of the century, under the influence 
of St. John, both days were observed side by side; and 
the Apostolical Constitutions represent St. Peter and St. 
Paul in concord decreeing, “Let the slaves work five 
days; but on the Sabbath-day and the Lord’s-day let 
them have leisure to go to church for instruction and 
piety. We have said that the Sabbath is to be observed 
on account of the Creation, and the Lord’s-day on 
account of the Resurrection.” * 

After the Ascension, the Christian Church in Jeru- 
salem attended the services in the Temple? daily, as did 
the devout Jews. There is, however, no proof that they 
assisted at the sacrifices. They continued to circumcise 
their children; they observed the Mosaic distinction of 
meats; they abstained from things strangled and from 
blood.* 

The doctrine of the apostles after the descent of the 
Holy Ghost was founded on the Resurrection. They 
went everywhere preaching the Resurrection ; they 
claimed to be witnesses to it, they declared that Jesus 
had risen, they had seen him after he had risen, that 

1 Acts xx. 7 ;' 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Rev. i. 9. . 


2 Const. Apost. lib. viii. 33. 
3 Acts ii, 46, iii. 1, v. 42. 4 Acts xv. 


CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 19 


therefore the resurrection of all men was possible. The 
doctrine of the Resurrection was held most zealously by 
the Pharisees ; it was opposed by the Sadducees. This 
vehement proclamation of the disputed doctrine, this 
production of evidence which overthrew it, irritated the 
Sadducees then in power. We are expressly told that 
they “came upon them (the apostles), being grieved 
that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus 
the Resurrection.” This led to persecution of the 
apostles. But the apostles, in maintaining the doctrine 
of the Resurrection, were fighting the battles of the 
Pharisees, who took their parts against the dominant 
Sadducee faction,” and many, glad of a proof which would 
overthrow Sadduceeism, joined the Church.? 

We can therefore perfectly understand how the Sad- 
ducees hated and persecuted the apostles, and how the 
orthodox Pharisees were disposed to hail them as auxili- 
aries against the common enemy. And Sadduceeism was 
at that time in full power and arrogance, exercising 
intolerable tyranny. | 

Herod the Great, having fallen in love with Mariamne, 
daughter of a certain Simon, son of Boethus of Alexan- 
dria, desired to marry her, and saw no other means of 
ennobling his father-in-law than by elevating him to 
the office of high-priest (B.C. 28). This intriguing family 
maintained possession of the high-priesthood for thirty- 
five years. It was like the Papacy in the house of Tus- 
culum, or the primacy of the Irish Church in that of 
the princes of Armagh. Closely allied to the reigning © 
family, it lost its hold of the high-priesthood on the 
deposition of Archelaus, but recovered it in A.D. 42. 
This family, called Boethusim, formed a sacerdotal 


1 Acts i. 22, iv. 2, 33, xxiii. 6. 
2 Acts xxili, 7. 3 Acts xv. 5. 


20 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


nobility, filling all the offices of trust and emolument 
about the Temple, very worldly, supremely indifferent 
to their religious duties, and defiantly sceptical. They 
were Sadducees, denying angel, and devil, and resurrec- 
tion; living in easy self-indulgence; exasperating the 
Pharisees by their heresy, grieving the Essenes by their 
irreligion. 

In the face of the secularism of the ecclesiastical rulers, 
the religious zeal of the people was sure to break out in 
some form of dissent. 

John the Baptist was the St. Francis of Assisi, the 
Wesley of his time. If the Baptist was not actually an 
Essene, he was regarded as one by the indiscriminating 
public eye, never nice in detecting minute dogmatic dif- 
ferences, judging only by external, broad resemblances 
of practice. 

The ruling worldliness took alarm at his bold denun- 
ciations of evil, and his head fell. 

Jesus of Nazareth seemed to stand forth occupying 
the same post, to be the mouthpiece of the long-brooding 
discontent; and the alarmed party holding the high- 
priesthood and the rulership of the Sanhedrim compassed 
his death. To the Sadducean Boethusim, who rose into 
power again in A.D, 42, Christianity was still obnoxious, 
but more dangerous; for by falling back on the grand 
doctrine of Resurrection, it united with it the great sect 
of the Pharisees. 

Under these circumstances the Pharisees began to 
regret the condemnation and death of Christ as a mistake 
of policy. Under provocation and exclusion from office, 
they were glad to unite with the Nazarene Church in 
combating the heretical sect and family which mono- 
polized the power, just as at the present day in Germany 
Ultramontanism and Radicalism are fraternizing. Jeru- 
salem fell, and Sadduceeism fell with it, but the link 


CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 21 


which united Pharisaism and Christianity was not 
broken as yet; if the Jewish believers and the Pharisees 
had not a common enemy to fight, they had a common 
loss to deplore; and when they mingled their tears in 
banishment, they forgot that they were not wholly one 
in faith. Christianity had been regarded by them as 
a modified Essenism, an Essenism gravitating towards 
Pharisaism, which lent to Pharisaism an element of 
strength and growth in which it was naturally deficient 
—that zeal and spirituality which alone will attract and 
quicken the popular mind into enthusiasm. 

Whilst the Jewish Pharisees and Jewish Nazarenes 
were forgetting their differences and approximating, the 
ereat and growing company of Gentile believers assumed 
a position of open, obtrusive indifference at first, and 
then of antagonism, to the Law, not merely to the Law 
as accepted by the Pharisee, but to the Law as winnowed 
by the Essene. 

The apostles at Jerusalem were not disposed to force 
the Gentile converts into compliance with all the re- 
quirements of that Law, which they regarded as vitiated 
by human glosses; but they maintained that the con- 
verts must abstain from meats offered to idols, from the 
flesh of such animals as had been strangled, and from 
blood* Ifwe may trust the Clementines, which represent 
the exaggerated Judaizing Christianity of the ensuing. 
century, they insisted also on the religious obligation of 
personal cleanliness, and on abstention from such meats 
as had been pronounced unclean by Moses. 

To these requirements one more was added, affecting 
the relations of married people; these were subjected 
to certain restrictions, the observance of new moons and 
sabbaths. 

“This,” says St. Peter, in the Homilies,? “is the rule of 


1 Acts xv. 29. 2 Clem. Homil. vii. 8. 


22 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS, 


divine appointment. To worship God only, and trust only 
in the Prophet of Truth, and to be baptized for the remission 
of sins, to abstain from the table of devils, that is, food offered 
to idols, from dead carcases, from animals that have been 
suffocated or mangled by wild beasts, and from blood; not 
to live impurely ; to be careful to wash when unclean ; that 
the women keep the law of purification; that all be sober- 
minded, given to good works, refrain from wrong-doing, look 
for eternal life from the all-powerful God, and ask with prayer 
and continual supplication that they may win it.” 


These simple and not very intolerable requirements 
nearly produced a schism. St. Paul took the lead in 
rejecting some of the restraints imposed by the apostles 
at Jerusalem. He had no patience with their minute 
prescriptions about meats: “Touch not, taste not, handle 
not, which all are to perish with the using.”? It was 
inconvenient for the Christian invited to supper to have 
to make inquiries if the ox had been knocked down, or 
the fowl had had its neck wrung, before he could eat. 
What right had the apostles to impose restrictions on 
conjugal relations? St. Paul waxed hot over this. “ Ye 
observe days and months and times and years. I am 
afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in 
vain.”” “Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or 
in respect of an holiday, or of the new moons, or of the 
sabbath-days.”* It was exactly these sabbaths and new 
moons on which the Nazarene Church imposed restraint 
on married persons.* As for meat offered in sacrifice to 
idols, St. Paul relaxed the order of the apostles assem- 
bled in council. It was no matter of importance whether 


1 Col. ii. 21. 

2 Gal. iv. 10. When it is seen in the Clementines how important the 
observance of these days was thought, what a fundamental principle it was 
of Nazarenism, I think it cannot be doubted that it was against this that 
St. Paul wrote. 

3 Col. ii. 16. 4 Clement. Homil. xix. 22. 


CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 23 


men ate sacrificial meat or not, for “an idol is nothing 
in the world.” Yet with tender care for scrupulous 
souls, he warned his disciples not to flaunt their liberty 
in the eyes of the sensitive, and offend weak consciences. 
He may have thus allowed, in opposition to the apostles 
at Jerusalem, because his common sense got the better 
of his prudence. But the result was the widening of 
the breach that had opened at Antioch when he with- 
stood Peter to the face. 

The apostles had abolished circumcision as a rite to 
be imposed on the Gentile proselytes, but the children 
of Jewish believers were still submitted by their parents, 
with the consent of the apostles, to the Mosaic institu- 
tion. This St. Paul would not endure. He made ita 
matter of vital importance. “ Behold, I, Paul, say unto 
you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you 
nothing. For I testify again to every man that is cir- 
cumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ 
is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are 
justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Ina > 
word, to submit to this unpleasant, but otherwise harm- 
less ceremony, was equivalent to renouncing Christ, 
losing the favour of God and the grace of the Holy | 
Spirit. It was incurring damnation. The blood of | 
Christ, his blessed teaching, his holy example, could | 
“profit nothing” to the unfortunate child which had ‘ 
been submitted to the knife of the circumciser. 

The contest was carried on with warmth. St. Paul, 
in his Epistle to the Galatians, declared his independ-— 
ence of the Jewish-Christian Church; his Gospel was 
not that of Peter and James. Those who could ποῦ, 
symbolize with him he pronounced “accursed.” The_ 
pillar apostles, James, Cephas and John, had given, in-- 
deed, the right hand of fellowship to the Apostle of 

1 Gal. v. 2—4. 


24 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


the Gentiles, when they imposed on his converts from 
heathenism the light rule of abstinence from sacrificial 
meats, blood and fornication ; but it was with the under- 
standing that he was to preach to the Gentiles exclu- 
sively, and not to interfere with the labours of St. Peter 
and St. James among the Jews. But St. Paul was im- 
patient of restraint; he would not be bound to confine 
his teaching to the uncircumcision, nor would he allow 
his Jewish converts to be deprived of their right to that 
full and frank liberty which he supposed the Gospel to 
proclaim. 

Paul’s followers assumed a distinct name, arrogated 
to themselves the exclusive right to be entitled “ Chris- 
tians,” whilst they flung on the old apostolic community 
᾿ς of Nazarenes the disdainful title of “the Circumcision.” 
An attempt was made to maintain a decent, superficial 
. unity, by the rival systems keeping geographically sepa- 
rate. But sucha compromise was impossible. Wherever 
Jews accepted the doctrine that Christ was the Messiah 
there would be found old-fashioned people clinging to 
the customs of their childhood respecting Moses, and 
reverencing the Law; to whom the defiant use of meats 
they had been taught to regard as unclean would be 
ever repulsive, and flippant denial of the Law under 
which the patriarchs and prophets had served God must 
ever prove offensive. Such would naturally form a 
Judaizing party,—a party not disposed to force their 
modes of life and prejudices on the Gentile converts, but 
who did not wish to dissociate Christianity from Mosaism, 
who would view the Gospel as the sweet flower that had 
blossomed from the stem of the Law, not as an axe laid 
at its root. 

But the attempt to reconcile both parties was impos- 
sible at that time, in the heat, intoxication and extrava- 
gance of controversy. In the Epistle to the Galatians 


CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 25 


we see St. Paul writing in a strain of fiery excitement 
against those who interfered with the liberty of his con- 
verts, imposing on them the light rule of the Council of 
Jerusalem. The followers of St. Peter and St. James are 
designated as those who “ bewitch” his converts, “remove 
them from the grace of Christ to another Gospel ;” who 
“trouble” his little Church in its easy liberty, “would 
pervert the gospel of Christ.” To those only who hold 
with him in complete emancipation of the believer from 
vexatious restraints, “to as many as walk according to 
this rule,” will he accord his benediction, “Peace and 
mercy.” 

He assumed a position of hostility to the Law. He 
placed the Law on one side and the Gospel on the other ; 
here restraint, there liberty ; here discipline, there free- 
dom. A choice must be made between them ; an election 
between Moses and Christ. There was no conciliation 
possible. To be under the Law was not to be under 
erace; the Law was a “curse,” from which Christ had 
redeemed man. Paul says he had not known lust but 
by the Law which said, Thou shalt not covet. Men 
under the Law were bound by its requirements, as a 
woman is bound to a husband as long as he lives, but 
when the husband is dead she is free,—so those who 
accept the Gospel are free from the Law and all its re- 
quirements. The law which said, Thou shalt not covet, 
is dead. Sin was the infraction of the law. But the 
law being dead, sin is no more. “ Until the law, sin 
was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is 
no law.” “Where no law is, there is no transgression.” 
“ Now we are delivered from the law, that being dead 
wherein we were held.” 

Such an attack upon what was reverenced and ob- 
served by the Jewish Christians, and such doctrine which 
seemed to throw wide the flood-gates of immorality, 

Cc 


20 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


naturally excited alarm and indignation among those 
who followed the more temperate teaching of Peter and 
James and John. 

The converts of St. Paul, in their eagerness to mani- 
| fest their emancipation from the Law, rolled up ceremo- 
_ nial and moral restrictions in one bundle, and flung both 
clean away. 

The Corinthians, to show their freedom under the 
Gospel, boasted their licence to commit incest “such 
as was not so much as named among the Gentiles.” ὦ 
Nicolas, a hot Pauline, and his followers “rushed head- 
long into fornication without shame ;”? he had the 
effrontery to produce his wife and offer her for promis- 
cuous insult before the assembled apostles ;? the later 
Pauline Christians went further. The law was, it was 
agreed, utterly bad, but it was promulgated by God; 
therefore the God of the Law was not the same deity as 
the God of the Gospel, but another inferior being, the 
Demiurge, whose province was rule, discipline, restraint, 
whereas the God of the Gospel was the God of absolute 
freedom and unrestrained licence. 

They refused to acknowledge any Scriptures save the 
Gospel of St. Luke, or rather the Gospel of the Lord, 
another recension of that Gospel, drawn up by order 
of St. Paul, and the Epistles of the Apostle of the 

Gentiles. 

But even in the first age the disorders were terrible. 
St. Paul’s Epistles give glimpses of the wild outbreak of 
antinomianism that everywhere followed his preaching, 
— the drunkenness which desecrated the Eucharists, 
the backbitings, quarrellings, fornication, lasciviousness, 
which called forth such indignant denunciation from the 
great apostle. 

Al Cor. te 
* Euseb. Hist. Hecl. iii, 29. 3 Ibid. 


CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 27 


Yet he was as guiltless of any wish to relax the 
restraints of morality as was, in later days, his great 
counterpart Luther. Each rose up against a narrow 
formalism, and proclaimed the liberty of the Christian 
from obligation to barren ceremonial; but there were 
those in the first, as there were those in the sixteenth 
century, with more zeal than self-control, who found 
“ Justification by Faith only” a very comfortable doc- 
trine, quite capable of accommodating itself to a sensual 
or careless life. 

St. Paul may have seen, and probably did see, that 
Christianity would never make way if one part of the 
community was to be fettered by legal restrictions, and 
the other part was to be free. According to the purpose 
apparent in the minds of James and Peter, the Jewish 
converts were to remain Jews, building up Christian 
faith on the foundation of legal prescriptions, whilst the 
Gentile converts were to start from a different point. 
There could be no unity in the Church under this 
system—all must go under the Law, or all must fling it 
off. The Church, starting from her cradle with such an 
element of weakness in her constitution, must die pre- 
maturely. 

He was right in his view. But it is by no means 
certain that St. Peter and St. James were as obstinately 
opposed to the gradual relaxation of legal restrictions, 
and the final extinction or transformation of the cere- 
monial Law, as he supposed. | 

In the heat and noise of controversy, he no doubt 
used unguarded language, said more than he thought, 
and his converts were not slow to take him aw pied de 
la lettre. 

The tone of Paul’s letters shows conclusively that not | 
for one moment would he relax moral obligation. With | 
the unsuspiciousness of a guileless spirit, he never sus- 

C2 


28 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 





pected that his words, taken and acted upon as a prac- 
tical system, were capable of becoming the charter of 
antinomianism. Yet it was so. No sooner had he 
begun to denounce the Law, than he was understood to 
mean the whole Law, not merely its ceremonial part. 
When he began to expatiate on the freedom of Grace, 
he was understood to imply that human effort was over- 
ridden. When he proclaimed Justification by Faith only, 
it was held that he swept away for ever obligation to 
keep the Commandments. 

The results were precisely the same in the sixteenth 
century, when Luther re-affirmed Paulinism, with all his 
warmth and want of caution. At first he proclaimed 
his doctrines boldly, without thought of their practical 
application. When he saw the results, he was staggered, 
and hasted to provide checks, and qualify his former 
words : 


“ Listen to the Papists,” he writes; “the sole argument 
they use against us is that no good result has come of my 
doctrine. And, in fact, scarce did I begin to. preach my 
Gospel before the country burst into frightful revolt; schisms 
and sects tore the Church; everywhere honesty, morality, and 
good order fell into ruin ; every one thought to live indepen- 
dently, and conduct himself after his own fancy and caprices 
and pleasure, as though the reign of the Gospel drew with it 
the suppression of all law, right and discipline. Licence and 
all kinds of vices and turpitudes are carried in all conditions 
to an extent they never were before. In those days there 
was some observance of duty, the people especially were 
decorous; but now, like a wild horse without rein and bridle, 
without constraint or decency, they rush on the accomplish- 
ment of their grossest lusts.” 1 


1 “ Lies der Papisten Biicher, hére ihre Predigen, so wirst du finden, 
dass diess ihr einziger Grund ist, darauf sie stehen wider uns pochen und 
trotzen, da sie vorgeben, es sei nichts Gutes aus unserer Lehre gekommen. 
Denn alsbald, da unser Evangelium anging und sie horen liess, folgte der 


CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 29 


Gaspard Schwenkfeld saw the result of this teaching, 
and withdrew from it into what he considered a more 
spiritual sect, and was one of the founders of Anabap- 
tism, a reaction against the laxity and licentiousness of 
Lutheranism. “This doctrine,” said he, “is dangerous 
and scandalous ; it fixes us in impiety, and even encou- 
rages us in 1. 1 

The Epistles of St. Paul exhibit him grappling with 

‘this terrible evil, crying out in anguish against the daily 
-growing scandals, insisting that his converts should 
leave off their “rioting and drunkenness, chambering 
and wantonuess, strife and envying;” that their bodies 
were temples of the Spirit of God, not to be defiled with 
impurity ; that it was in vain to deceive themselves by 
boasting their faith and appealing to the freedom of 
Grace. “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adul- 
terers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with 
mankind, nor thieves, nor coveters, nor drunkards, nor 
revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of 
God.” 

And he holds himself up to his Corinthian converts 
as an example that, though professing liberty, they 
should walk orderly: “Be ye followers of me, even as I 
also am of Christ.” ? 


griuliche Aufruhr, es erhuben sich in der Kirche Spaltung und Sekten, es 
ward Ehrbarkeit, Disziplin und Zucht zerriittet, und Jedermann wolte 
vogelfrei seyn und thun, was ihm gelistet nach allem seinen Muthwillen 
und Gefallen, als waren alle Gesetze, Rechte und Ordnung gans aufhoben, 
wie es denn leider allzu wahr ist. Denn der Muthwille in allen Standen, 
mit allerlei Laster, Sinden und Schanden ist jetzt viel grésser denn zuvor, 
da die Leute, und sonderlich der Pébel, doch etlichermassen in Furcht und 
in Zaum gehalten waren, welches nun wie ein zaumlos Pferd lebt und thut 
Alles, was es nur geliistet ohne allen Scheu.” —Hd. Walch, v. 114. Fora 
very full account of the disorders that broke out on the preaching of 
Luther, see Déllinger’s Die Reformation in ihre Entwicklung. Regensb. 
1848, 
1 Epistolas, 1528, ii. 192. - ἈΦ] Cor, xi. 


30 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


] But apparently all his efforts could only control the 
| most exuberant manifestations of antinomianism, like 
| the incest at Corinth. 

The grave Petrine Christians at Jerusalem were 
startled at the tidings that reached them from Asia 
Minor and Greece. It was necessary that the breach 
should be closed. The Church at Jerusalem was poor ; 
a collection was ordered by St. Paul to be made for its 
necessities. He undertook to carry the money himself 
to Jerusalem, and at the same time, by conforming to 
an insignificant legal custom, to recover the regard and 
confidence of the apostles. 

_ This purpose emerges at every point in the history of 

St. Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem. But it was too late. 

᾿ The alienation of parties was too complete to be salved 
over with a gift of money and appeased by shaven 
crowns." | 

When St. Paul was taken, he made one ineffectual 

_ effort to establish his relation to Judaism, by an appeal 
_ tothe Pharisees. But it failed. He was regarded with 
| undisguised abhorrence by the Jews, with coldness by 
_ the Nazarenes. The Jews would have murdered him. 
_ We do not hear that a Nazarene visited him. 
Further traces of the conflict appear in the Epistles. 
The authenticity of the Epistle to the Hebrews has been 
doubted, disputed, and on weighty grounds. It is satu- 
rated with Philonism, whole passages of Philo re-appear 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, yet I cannot doubt that 
it is by St. Paul. When the heat of contest was some- 
what abated, when he saw how wofully he had been 
misunderstood by his Jewish and Gentile converts in 
the matter of the freedom of the Gospel; when he learned 
how that even the heathen, not very nice about morals, 


1 Acts xxi. 23, 24. 


CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 51 


spoke of the scandals that desecrated the assemblies of 
the Pauline Christians,—then no doubt he saw that it 
was necessary to lay down a plain, sharp line of demar- 
cation between those portions of the Law which were 
not binding, and those which were. Following a train 
of thought suggested by Philo, whose works he had just 
read, he showed that the ceremonial, sacrificial law was 
symbolical, and that, as it typified Christ, the coming of 
the One symbolized abrogated the symbol. But the 
moral law had no such natural limit, therefore it was 
permanent. Yet he was anxious not to be thought to 
abandon his high views of the dignity of Faith; and the 
Epistle to the Hebrews contains one of the finest pas- 
sages of his writing, the magnificent eulogy on Faith in 
the 11th chapter. St. Paul, like Luther, was not a clear 
thinker, could not follow a thread of argument uninter- 
ruptedly to its logical conclusion. Often, when he saw 
that conclusion looming before him, he hesitated to 
assert it, and proceeded to weaken the cogency of his 
former reasoning, or diverged to some collateral or irre- 
levant topic. 

The Epistle to the Hebrews is, I doubt not, a reflex 
of the mind of Paul under the circumstances indi- 
cated. ; 

This Epistle, there can be little question, called forth 
the counterblast of the Epistle of James, the Lord’s 
brother. But the writer of that Epistle exhibits an 
unjust appreciation of the character of St. Paul. Paul 
was urged on by conviction, and not actuated by vanity. 
Yet the exasperation must have been great which called 
forth the indignant exclamation, “ Wilt thou know, O 
vain man, that faith without works is dead!” } : 

The “second of the Canonical Epistles attributed to 


1 James il. 20. 


92 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


St. Peter,! if not the expression of the opinion of the 
Prince of the Apostles himself, represents the feelings of 
Nazarene Christians of the first century. It cautions 
those who read the writings of St. Paul, “ which they 
that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also 
the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 

The Nicolaitans, taking advantage of the liberty ac- 
corded them in one direction, assumed it in another. In 
the letter to the Church of Pergamos, in the Apocalypse, 
they are denounced as “ eating things sacrificed to idols, 
and committing fornication.”* They are referred to as 
the followers of Balaam, both in that Epistle and in the 
Epistles of Jude and the 2nd of St. Peter. This is be- 
cause Balaam has the same significance as Nicolas. 
Jude, the brother of James, writes of them: “ Certain 
men are crept in unawares... . ungodly men turning 
the grace of our God into lasciviousness .. .. who 
defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dig- 
nities,” 7.¢. of the apostles; “these speak evil of those 
things which they know not; but what they know 
naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt 
themselves. But, beloved, remember ye the words which 
were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus 
Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers 
in the last time, who should walk after their own un- 
godly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, 
sensual, having not the Spirit.” 

And St. Peter wrote in wrath and horror: “It had 
been better not to have known the way of righteous- 


1 Jt is included by Eusebius in the Antilegomena, and, according to 
St. Jerome, was rejected as a spurious composition by the majority of the 
Christian world, 

2 Rev. ii. 1, 14, 15. 

3 nya, destruction of the people, from v2, to swallow wp, and 
DY, people = Νικόλαος. 


Ω 


CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. aa 


ness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the 
holy commandment delivered unto them.” Ὁ 

The extreme Pauline party went on their way; 
Marcion, Valentine, Mark, were its successive high- 
priests and prophets. It ran from one extravagance to 
another, till it sank into the preposterous sect of the 
Cainites; in their frantic hostility to the Law, canonizing 
Cain, Esau, Pharaoh, Saul, all who are denounced in the 
Old Testament as having resisted the God of the Law, 
and deifying the Serpent, the Deceiver, as the God of 
the Gospel who had first revealed to Eve the secret οἵ 
liberty, of emancipation from restraint. ~ 

But disorders always are on the surface, patent to 
every one, and cry out fora remedy. Those into which 
the advanced Pauline party had fallen were so flagrant, 
so repugnant to the good sense and right feelings of 
both Jew and Gentile believers, that they forced on a 
reaction. The most impracticable antinomians on one 
side, and obstructive Judaizers on the other, were cut 
off, or cut themselves off, from the Church; and a 
temper of mutual concession prevailed among the mode- 
rate. At the head of this movement stood St. John. 

The work of reconciliation was achieved by the 
Apostle of Love. A happy compromise was effected. 
The Sabbath and the Lord’s-day were both observed, 
side by side. Nothing was said on one side about dis- 
tinction in meats, and the sacred obligation of washing ; 
and on the other, the Gentile Christians adopted the 
Psalms of David and much of the ceremonial of the 
Temple into their liturgy. The question of circumci- 
sion was not mooted. It had died out of exhaustion, 
and the doctrine of Justification was accepted as a harm- 
less opinion, to be constantly corrected by the moral law 
and common. sense. 
SI Pet i121: 

C3 


94 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


A similar compromise took place at the English 
Reformation. In deference to the dictation of foreign 
reformers, the Anglican divines adopted their doctrine of 
Justification by Faith only into the Articles, but took 
the wise precaution of inserting as an antidote the 
Decalogue in the Communion Office, and of ordering it 
to be written up, where every one might read, in the 
body of the church. 

The compromise effected by the influence and 
authority of St. John was rejected by extreme partizans 
on the right and the left. The extreme Paulines con- 
tinued to refuse toleration to the Law and the Old 
Testament. The Nazarene community had also its 
impracticable zealots who would not endure the reading 
of the Pauline Epistles. 

The Church, towards the close of the apostolic age, 
was made up of a preponderance of Gentile converts ; 
in numbers and social position they stood far above the 
Nazarenes. 

Under St. John, the Church assumed a distinctively 
Gentile character. In its constitution, religious worship, 
in its religious views, it differed widely from the Naza- 
rene community in Palestine. 

With the disappearance from its programme of dis- 
tinction of meats and circumcision, its connection with 
Judaism had disappeared. But Nazarenism was not 
confined to Palestine. In Rome, in Greece, in Asia 
Minor, there were large communities, not of converted 
Jews only, but of proselytes from Gentiledom, who re- 
garded themselves as constituting the Church of Christ. 
The existence of this fact is made patent by the Clemen- 
tines and the Apostolic Constitutions. St. Peter’s suc- 
cessors in the see of Rome have been a matter of per- 
plexity. It has impressed itself on ecclesiastical students 
that Linus and Cletus ruled simultaneously. I have 


CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. a 


little doubt it was so. The Judaizing Church was strong 
in Rome. Probably each of the two communities had 
its bishop set over it, one by Paul, the other by Peter. 

Whilst the “Catholic” Church, the Church of the 

compromise, grew and prospered, and conquered the 
world, the narrow Judaizing Church dwindled till it ex- 
pired, and with its expiration ceased conversion from 
Judaism. This Jewish Church retained to the last its 
close relationship with Mosaism. Circumstances, as has 
been shown, drew the Jewish believer and the Pharisee 
together. 
_ When Jerusalem fell, the Gentile Church passed with- 
out a shudder under the Bethlehem Gate, whereon an 
image of a swine had been set up in mockery ; contem- 
plated the statue of Hadrian on the site of the Temple 
without despair, and constituted itself under a Gentile 
bishop, Mark, in Atlia Capitolina. 

But the old Nazarene community, the Church of 
James and Symeon, clinging tightly to its old traditions, 
crouched in exile at Pella, confounded by the Romans 
in common banishment with the Jew. ‘The guards 
thrust back Nazarene and Jew alike with their spears, 
when they ventured to approach the ruins of their pros- 
trate city, the capital of their nation and of their faith. 

The Church at Jerusalem under Mark was, to the 
Nazarene, alien; its bishop an intruder. To the Naza- 
rene, the memory of Paul was still hateful. The Clemen- 
tine Recognitions speak of him with thinly-disguised 
aversion, and tell of a personal contest between him, 
when the persecutor Saul, and St. James their bishop, 
and of his throwing down stairs, and beating till nearly 
dead, the brother of the Lord. In the very ancient ° 
apocryphal letter of St. Peter to St. James, belonging to 
the same sect, and dating from the second century, Paul 
is spoken of as the “enemy preaching a doctrine at once 


36 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 





foolish and lawless.”1 The Nazarene Christians, as 
Ireneeus and Theodoret tell us, regarded him as an apos- 
tate.2 They would not receive his Epistles or the 
Gospel of St. Luke drawn up under his auspices. 

In the Homilies, St. Peter is made to say : 


“Our Lord and Prophet, who hath sent us, declared that 
the Wicked One, having disputed with him forty days, and 
having prevailed nothing against him, promised that he 
would send apostles among his subjects to deceive. Where- 
fore, above all, remember to shun apostle or teacher or pro- 
phet who does not first accurately compare his preaching with 
[that of] James, who was called the Brother of my Lord, and 
to whom was entrusted the administration of the Church of 
the Hebrews at Jerusalem. And that, even though he come 
to you with credentials ; lest the wickedness which prevailed 
nothing when disputing forty days with our Lord should 
afterwards, like lightning falling from heaven upon earth, 
send a preacher to your injury, preaching under pretence of 
truth, like this Simon [Magus], and sowing error.” ὃ 


The reader has but to study the Clementine Homilies 


1 Tov ἐχθροῦ ἀνθρώπου ἄνομον τίνα καὶ φλυαρώδη διδασκαλιάν. --- 
Clem. Homil. xx. ed. Dressel, p. 4. The whole passage is sufliciently 
curious to be-quoted. St. Peter writes: ‘‘There are some from among 
the Gentiles who have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to 
certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man whois my enemy. And 
these things some have attempted while I am still alive, to transform my 
words by certain various interpretations, in order to the dissolution of the 
Law ; as though I also myself were of such a mind, but did not freely pro- 
claim it, which God forbid! For such a thing were to act in opposition to 
the law of God, which was spoken by Moses, and was borne witness to by 
our Lord in respect of its eternal continuance ; for thus he spoke : The 
heavens and the earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no 
wise pass from the law.” 


2 “ Apostolum Paulum recusantes, apostatam eum legis dicentes.”— 
Iren. Ady. Heres, i. 26. Tow δὲ ἀπὸστυλον ἀποστάτην καλοῦσι. --- 
Theod. Fabul. Heret. ii. 1. 


3 Hom. xi. 35. 


9 


CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. © oF 


and Recognitions, and his wonder at the silence of Jose- 
phus and Justus will disappear. 

Those curious books afford us a precious insight into 
the feelings of the Nazarenes of the first and second 
centuries, showing us what was the temper of their 
minds and the colour of their belief. They represent 
St. James as the supreme head of the Church. He is 
addressed by St. Peter, “ Peter to James, the Lord and 
Bishop of the Holy Church, under the Father of all.” 
St. Clement calls him “the Lord and Bishop of bishops, 
who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Church of the Hebrews, 
and the Churches everywhere excellently founded by 
the providence of God.” 

Throughout the curious collection of Homilies, Chris- 
tianity is one with Judaism. It is a reform of Mosaism. 
It bears the relation to Judaism that the Anglican 
Church of the last three centuries, it is pretended, bears 
to the Medieval Church in England. Everything essen- 
tial was retained; only the traditions of the elders, the 
glosses of the lawyers, were rejected. 

Christianity is never mentioned by name. A believer 
is called, not a Christian, but a Jew. Clement de- 
scribes his own conversion: “I betook myself to the 
holy God and Law of the Jews, putting my faith in the 
well-assured conclusion that the Law has been assigned 
by the righteous judgment of God.” ἢ 

Apion the philosopher, is spoken of as hating the 
Jews; the context informs us that by Jews is meant 
those whom we should call Christians. 

Moses is the first prophet, Jesus the second. Like 
their spiritual ancestors the Essenes, the Nazarenes pro- 
tested that the Law was overlaid with inventions of a 
later date; these Jesus came to efface, that he might 
re-edit the Law in its ancient integrity. The original 


Hom, iy. 22. 


38 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 





Law, as given by God and written by Moses, was lost; 
it was found again after 300 years, lost again, and then 
re-written from memory by Ezra. Thus it came to pass 
that the Old Revelation went through various editions, 
which altered its meaning, and left it a compound of 
truths and errors." It was the mark of a good and wise 
Jew, instructed by Jesus, to distinguish between what 
was true and what was false in the Scriptures. 

Thus the Nazarene thought himself a Hebrew of the 
Hebrews, as an Anglican esteems himself 8. better 
Catholic than the Catholics. The Nazarenes would 
have resented with indignation the imputation that they 
were a sect alien from the commonwealth of Israel, and, 
like all communities occupying an uneasy seat between 
two stools, were doubly, trebly vehement in their denun- 
ciation of that sect to which they were thought to bear 
some relation. They repudiated “Christianity,” ? as a 
high Anglican repudiates Protestantism ; they held aloof 
from a Pauline believeryas an English Churchman will 
stand aloof from a Lutheran. 

And thus it came to pass that the Jewish historians 
of the first century said nothing about Christ and the 
Church he founded. 

And yet St. Paul had wrought a work for Christ and 
the Church which, humanly speaking, none else could 
have effected. 

The Nazarene Church was from its infancy prone to 
take a low view of the nature of Christ. The Jewish 
converts were so infected with Messianic notions that 
they could look on Jesus Christ only as the Messiah, 
not as incarnate God. They could see in him a prophet, 
“one like unto Moses,” but not one equal to the Father. 


1 Clem. Homil. ii. 88—40, 48, ili. 50, 51. 
2 Of course I mean the designation given to the Pauline sect, not the 
religion of Christ. 


CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. 90 


Se 


The teaching of the apostles seemed powerless at the 
time to lift the faith of their Jewish converts to high 
views of the Lord’s nature and mission. Their Judaic 
prejudice strangled, warped their faith. Directly the 
presence of the apostles was withdrawn, the restraint on 
this downward gravitation was removed, and Nazarenism 
settled into heresy on the fundamental doctrine of 
Christianity. To Gentiles it was in vain to preach Mes- 
sianism. Messianism implied an earnest longing for a 
promised deliverer. Gentiles had no such longing, had 
never been led to expect a deliverer. 

The apostle must take other ground. He took that 
of the Incarnation, the Godhead revealing the Truth 
to mankind by manifestation of itself among men, in 
human flesh. | 

The apostles to the circumcision naturally appealed 
to the ruling religious passion in the Jewish heart—the 
passion of hope for the promised Messiah. The Messiah 
was come. ‘The teaching of the apostles to the circum- 
cision necessarily consisted of an explanation of this 
truth, and efforts to, dissipate the false notions which 
coloured Jewish Messianic hopes, and interfered with 
their reception of the truth that Jesus was the one who 
had been spoken of by the prophets, and to whose 
coming their fathers had looked. 

To the Gentiles, St. Paul preached Christ as the re- 
vealer to a dark and ignorant world of the nature of 
God, the purpose for which He had made man, and the 
way in which man might serve and please God. The 


Jews had their revelation, and were satisfied with it. | 


The Gentiles walked in darkness; they had none; their 
philosophies were the gropings of earnest souls after 
light. The craving of the Gentile heart was for a reve- 
lation. Paul preached to them the truth manifested to 
the world through Christ. 


a — 


40 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


Thus Pauline teaching on the Incarnation counteracted 
the downward drag of Nazarene Messianism, which, when 
left to itself, ended in denying the Godhead of Christ. 

If for a century the churches founded by St. Paul were 
sick with moral disorders, wherewith they were inocu- 
lated, the vitality of orthodox belief in the Godhead of 
Christ proved stronger than moral heresy, cast it out, 


_and left only the scars to tell what they had gone 


through in their infancy. 
Boivin Christianity upheld the stated of morality, 


Pauline Christianity bore that of orthodoxy. 


St. John, in the cool of his old age, was able to give 
the Church its permanent form. The Gentile converts 
had learned to reverence the purity, the uprightness, the 
truthfulness of the Nazarene, and to be ashamed of their 
excesses; and the Nazarene had seen that his Mes- 
slanism supplied him with nothing to satisfy the inner 
yearning of his nature. Both met under the apostle of 
love to clasp hands and learn of one another, to confess 
their mutual errors, to place in the treasury of the 
Church, the one his faith, the other his ethics, to be the 
perpetual heritage of Christianity. 

Some there were still who remained fixed in their pre- 
judices, self-excommunicated, monuments to the Church 
of the perils she had gone through, the Scylla and Cha- 
rybdis through which she had passed with difficulty, 
guided by her Divine pilot. 


I have been obliged at some length to show that the 
early Christian Church in Palestine bore so close a re- 
semblance to the Essene sect, that to the ordinary super- 
ficial observer it was indistinguishable from it. And 
also, that so broad was the schism separating the Naza- 
rene Church consisting of Hebrews, from the Pauline 
Church consisting of Gentiles, that no external observer 


CAUSE OF THE SILENCE OF JOSEPHUS. Al 


who had not examined the doctrines of these communi- 
ties would suppose them to be two forms of the same 
faith, two religions sprung from the same loins. Their 
connection was as imperceptible to a Jew, as would be 
that between Roman Catholicism and Wesleyanism to- 
day. 

Both Nazarene and Jew worshipped in the same 
temple, observed the same holy days, practised the same 
rites, shrank with loathing from the same food, and 
mingled their anathemas against the same apostate, 
Paul, who had cast aside at once the law in which he 
had been brought up, and the Hebrew name 2 by which 
he had been εν 

The silence of Josephus and Justus under these cir- 
cumstances is explicable. They have described Essen- 
ism ; that description covers Nazarenism as it appeared 
to the vulgar eye. If they have omitted to speak of 
Jesus and his death, it is because both wrote at the time 
when Nazarene and Pharisee were most closely united 
in sympathy, sorrow and regret for the past. It was 
not a time to rip up old wounds, and Justus and Jose- 
phus were both Pharisees. 

That neither should speak of Pauline Christianity is 
also not remarkable. It was a Gentile religion, believed 
in only by Greeks and Romans; it had no open observ- 
able connection with Judaism. It was to them but 
another of those many religions which rose as mush- 
rooms, to fade away again on the soil of the Roman 
world, with which the Jewish historians had little in- 
terest and no concern. 

If this explanation which I have offered is unsatis- 
factory, I know not whither to look for another which 
can throw light to the strange silence of Philo, Jose- 
phus and Justus. 

It is thrown in the teeth of Christians, that history, 


42 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


apart from the Gospels, knows nothing of Christ; that 
the silence of contemporary, and all but contemporary, 
Jewish chroniclers, invalidates the testimony of the in- 
spired records. 

The reasons which I have given seem to me to ex- 
plain this silence plausibly, and to show that it arose, 
not from ignorance of the acts of Christ and the exist- 
ence of the Church, but from a deliberate purpose. 


IIT. 
THE JEW OF CELSUS. 


CELSUS was one of the four first controversial oppo- 
nents of Christianity. His book has been lost, with the 
exception of such portions as have been preserved by 
Origen. 

Nothing for certain is known of Celsus. Origen endea- 
vours to make him out to be an Epicurean, as prejudice 
existed even among the heathen against this school of 
philosophy, which denied, or left as open questions, the 
existence of a God, Providence, and the Eternity of the 
Soul. He says in his first book that he has heard there 
had existed two Epicureans of the name of Celsus, one 
who lived in the reign of Nero (+ A.D. 68), the other 
under Hadrian (f A.D. 138), and it is with this latter 
that he has to do. But it is clear from passages of 
Celsus quoted by Origen, that this antagonist of Chris- 
tianity was no Epicurean, but belonged to that school of 
Kelectics which based its teaching on Platonism, but 
adopted modifications from other schools. Origen him- 
self is obliged to admit in several passages of his 
controversial treatise that the views of Celsus are not 
Epicurean, but Platonic ; but he pretends that Celsus dis- 
guised his Epicureanism under a pretence of Platonism. 
Controversialists in the first days of Christianity were 
as prompt to discredit their opponents by ungenerous, 
false accusation, as in these later days. 

We know neither the place nor the date of the birth 
of Celsus. That he lived later than the times of Hadrian 


44 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


is clear from his mention of the Marcionites, who only 
arose in A.D. 142, and of the Marcellians, named after 
the woman Marcella, who, according to the testimony 
of Irenzus,’ first came to Rome in the time of Pope 
Anicetus, after A.D. 157. As Celsus in two passages re- 
marks that the Christians spread their doctrines secretly, 
because they were forbidden under pain of death to 
assemble together for worship, it would appear that he 
wrote his book Λόγος ἀληθής during the reign of Marcus 
Aurelius (between 161—180), who persecuted the Chris- 
tians. We may therefore put the date of the book approx- 
imately at A.D. 176. | 

The author is certainly the Celsus to whom Lucian 
dedicated his writing, “ Alexander the False Prophet.” 
Of the religious opinions of Celsus we are able to form a 
tolerable conception from the work of Origen. “If the 
Christians only honoured One God,” says he,” “ then the 
weapons of their controversy with others would not be 
so weak; but they show to a man, who appeared not 
long ago, an exaggerated honour, and are of opinion that 
they are not offending the Godhead, when they show to 
one of His servants the same reverence that they pay 
to God Himself.” Celsus acknowledges, with the Plato- 
nists, One only, eternal, spiritual God, who cannot be 
brought into union with impure matter, the world. AIL 
that concerns the world, he says, God has left to the 
dispensation of inferior spirits, which are the gods of 
heathendom. The welfare of mankind is at the disposal 
of these inferior gods, and men therefore do well to 
honour them in moderation ; but the human soul is called 
to escape the chains of matter and strain after perfect 
purity ; and this can only be done by meditation on the 
One, supreme, almighty God. “God,” says he,’ “has 


1 Adv. Heres. i, 24. 2 Origen, Contr. Cels. lib, viii, 
3 Tbid. lib. vi. 


THE JEW OF CELSUS. 45 


not made man in His image, as Christians affirm; for 
God has not either the appearance of a man, nor indeed 
any visible form.” In the fourth Book he remarks, in 
opposition to the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, 
“Twill appeal to that which has been held as true in 
all ages,—that God is good, beautiful, blessed, and pos- 
sesses in Himself all perfections. If He came down 
among men, He must have altered His nature; from a 
good God, He must have become bad; from beautiful, 
ugly; from blessed, unhappy; and His perfect Being 
would have become one of imperfection. Who can tolerate 
such a change? Only transitory things alter their con- 
ditions ; the intransitory remain ever the same. There- 
fore it is impossible to conceive that God can have been 
transformed in such a manner.” 

It is remarkable that Celsus, living in the middle of 
the second century, and able to make inquiries of aged 
Jews whose lives had extended from the first century, 
should have been able to find out next to nothing about 
Jesus and his disciples, except what he read in the 
Gospels. This is proof that no traditions concerning 
Jesus had been preserved by the Jews, apart from those 
contained in the Gospels, Canonical and Apocryphal. 

Origen’s answer to Celsus is composed of eight Books. 
In the first Book a Jew speaks, who is introduced by 
Celsus as addressing Jesus himself; in the second Book 
this Jew addresses those of his fellow-countrymen who 
have embraced Christianity; in the other six Books 
Celsus speaks for himself. .Origen extracts only short 
passages from the work of Celsus, and then labours to 
demolish the force of the argument of the opponent of 
Christianity as best he can. | 

The arguments of Celsus and the counter-arguments 
of Origen do not concern us here. All we have to deal 


4 Πν JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


with are those traditions or slanders detailed to Celsus 
by the Jews, which he reproduces. That Celsus was 
in communication with Jews when he wrote the two 
first Books is obvious, and the only circumstances he 
relates which concern the life of our Lord he derived 
from his Jewish informants. “The Jew (whom Celsus 
introduces) addresses Jesus, and finds much fault. In 
the first place, he charges him with having falsely pro- 
claimed himself to be the Son of a Virgin; afterwards, 
he says that Jesus was born in a poor Jewish village, 
and that his mother was a poor woman of the country, 
who supported herself with spinning and needlework ; 
that she was cast off by her betrothed, a carpenter; and 
that after she was thus rejected by her husband, she 
wandered about in disgrace and misery till she secretly 
gave birth to Jesus. Jesus himself was obliged from 
poverty and necessity to go down as servant into Egypt, 
where he learnt some of the secret sciences which are 
in high honour among the Egyptians; and he placed 
such confidence in these sciences, that on his return to 
his native land he gave himself out to be a God.” 

Origen adds: “The carpenter, as the Jew of Celsu 
declares, who was betrothed to Mary, put the mothe 
of Jesus from him, because she had broken faith with 
him, in favour of a soldier named Panthera.” 

Again: “Celsus relates from the Gospel of Matthew 
the flight of Christ into Egypt; but he denies all that 
is marvellous and supernatural in it, especially that an 
angel should have appeared to Joseph and ordered him 
to escape. Instead of seeking whether the departure of 
Jesus from Juda and his residence in Egypt had not 
some spiritual meaning, he has made up a fable con- 
cerning it. He admits, indeed, that Jesus may have 
wrought the miracles which attracted such a multitude 


THE JEW OF CELSUS. AT 


of people to him, and induced them to follow him as 
the Messiah; but he pretends that these miracles were 
wrought, not by virtue of his divine power, but of his 
magical knowledge. Jesus, says he, had a bad educa- 
tion; later he went into Egypt and passed into service 
there, and there learnt some wonderful arts. When he 
came back to his fatherland, on account of these arts, 
he gave himself out to be a God.”! 

“The Jew brought forward by Celsus goes on to say, ‘I 
could relate many things more concerning Jesus, all 
which are true, but which have quite a different cha- 
racter from what his disciples relate touching him; but 
1 will not now bring these forward. And what are 
these facts,” answers Origen, “which are not in agree- 
ment with the narratives of the Evangelists, and which 
the Jew refrains from mentioning? Unquestionably, he 
is using only a rhetorical expression; he pretends that 
he has in his store abundance of munitions of war to 
discharge against Jesus and his doctrine, but in fact he 
knows nothing which can deceive the hearer with the 
appearance of truth, except those particulars which he has 
culled from the Gospels themselves.”? 

This is most important evidence of the utter ignorance } 
of the Jews in the second century of all that related οὶ 
the history of our Lord. Justus and Josephus had been! 
silent. There was no written narrative to which the | 
Jew might turn for information; his traditions were 
silent. The fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the 
Jews had broken the thread of their recollections. 

It is very necessary to bear this in mind, in order to 
appreciate the utter worthlessness of the stories told of}. 
our Saviour in the Talmud and the Toledoth Jeschu. An 
attempt has been made to bolster up these late fables, 





1 Contra Cels. lib. i. 2 Ibid. lib. ii. 


48 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


and show that they are deserving of a certain amount 
of confidence.? 

But it is clear that the religious movement which our 
Lord originated in Palestine attracted much less atten- 
tion at the time than has been usually supposed. The 
Sanhedrim at first regarded his teaching with the con- 
tempt with which, in after times, Leo X. heard. of the 
preaching of Luther. “It is a schoolman’s proposition,” 
said the Pope. “A new rabbinical tradition,” the elders 
probably said. Only when their interests and fears 
were alarmed, did they interfere to procure the con- 
demnation of Christ. And then they thought no more 
of their victim and his history than they did later of 
the history of James, the Lord’s brother. The preaching 
and death of Jesus led to no tumultuous outbreak against 
the Roman government, and therefore excited little inte- 
rest. The position of Christ as the God-man was not 
forced on them by the Nazarenes. The Jews noticed 
the virtues of these men, but ignored their pecuhar 
tenets, till traditions were lost; and when the majesty 
of Christ, incarnate God, shone out on the world which 
turned to acknowledge him, they found that they had 
preserved no records, no recollections of the events in 
the history of Jesus. That he was said by Christians 
to have been born of a Virgin, driven into Egypt by 
King Herod—that he wrought miracles, gathered dis- 
ciples, died on the cross and rose again—they heard from 
the Christians; and these facts they made use of to 
pervert them into fantastic fables, to colour them with 
malignant inventions. The only trace of independent 
tradition is in the mention made of Panthera by the 
Jew produced by Celsus. 


1 Amongst others, Clemens : Jesus von Nazareth, Stuttgart, 1850; Von 
der Alme: Die Urtheile heidnischer und jiidischer Schriftsteller, Leipzig, 


1864, 
* 


THE JEW OF’ CELSUS. 49 


It is perhaps worthy of remark that St. Epiphanius, 
who wrote against heresies at the end of the fourth cen- 
tury, gives the genealogy of Jesus thus :1 





Jacob, called Panther = 2 
| 


| | 
Mary = Joseph Cleophas 


JESUS. 


It shows that in the fourth century the Jewish stories 
of Panthera had made such an impression on the Chris- 
tians, that his name was forced into the pedigree of Jesus. 

Had any of the stories found in the Toledoth Jeschu | 
existed in the second century, we should certainly have 
found them in the book of Celsus. 

Origen taunts the Jew with knowing nothing of Christ 
but what he had found out from the Gospels. He would 
not have uttered that taunt had any anti-Christian apo- 
cryphal biographies of Christ existed in his day. The 
Talmud, indeed, has the tale of Christ having studied 
magic in Egypt. Whence this legend, as well as that of 
Panthera, came, we shall see presently. 


1 Adv. Heer. lib. iii.; Heer. Ixviii. 7. 


; 
b 


TY; 
THE TALMUD. 


THE Talmud (ic. the Teaching) consists of two parts, 


| the Mischna and the Gemara. 


ϊ 


The Mischna (ie. δευτέρωσις, Second Law, or Reca- 
pitulation) is a collection of religious ordinances, in- 
terpretations of Old Testament passages, especially of 
Mosaic rules, which have been given by various illus- 


trious Rabbis from the date of the founding of the second 


Temple, therefore from about B.C. 400 to the year 
A.D. 200. These interpretations, which were either 
written or orally handed down, were collected in the 
year A.D. 219 by the Rabbi Jehuda the Holy, at Tibe- 
rias, on the Sea of Galilee, into a book to which he gave 
the name of Mischna, the Recapitulation of the Law. 
At that time the Jewish Sanhedrim and the Patriarch 
resided at Tiberias. After the destruction of Jerusalem 
in A.D. 70, the Sanhedrim, which consisted of seventy- 
one persons, assembled at Jamnia, the ancient Philistine 
city of Jabne; but on the insurrection of the Jews 
under Barcochab, A.D. 135, it took up its quarters at 
Tiberias. There the Sanhedrim met under a hereditary 
Patriarch of the family of Gamaliel, who bore the title 
of Nasi, Chief, till A.D. 420, when the last member of 
the house of Gamaliel died, and the Patriarchate and 
Sanhedrim departed from Tiberias. 

The Mischna is made up of six Orders (Sedarim), 
which together contain sixty-three Tractates. The first 
Order or Seder is called Iesaim, and treats of agricul- 


THE TALMUD. 51 


ture. The second, Moed, treats of festivals. The third, 
Naschim, deals with the rights of women. The fourth, 
Nezikim, or Jechnoth, treats of cases of law. The fifth, 
Kodaschim, of holy things. The sixth, Taharoth, of im- 
purity and purifications. 

The Orders of Kodaschim and Taharoth are incom- 
plete. The Jerusalem Talmud consists of only the first 
four, and the tract Nidda, which belongs to the Order 
Taharoth. : 

Now it is deserving of remark, that many of the 


Rabbis whose sayings are recorded in the Mischna lived | 


in the time of our Lord, or shortly after, and yet that 
not the smallest reference is made to the teaching of 
Jesus, nor even any allusion to him personally. ΑἹ- 
though the Mischna was drawn up beside the Sea of 
Galilee, at Tiberias, near where Jesus lived and wrought 
miracles and taught, neither he nor his followers are 
mentioned once throughout the Mischna. 

There must be a reason why the Mischna, as well as 
Josephus and Justus of Tiberias, is silent respecting 
Jesus of Nazareth. The reason I have already given. 


The followers of Jesus were regarded as belonging to — 


the sect of the Essenes. Our Lord’s teaching made no 
oreat impression on the Jews of his time. It was so 
radically unlike the pedantry and puerilities of their 
Rabbis, that they did not acknowledge him as a teacher 
of the Law. He had preached Essene disengagement 
from the world, conquest of passion. Only when Essene 
enthusiasm was thought to threaten the powerful fami- 
lies which held possession of and abused the pontifical 
office, had the high-priest and his party taken alarm, 
and obtained the condemnation and death of Jesus. 
Their alarm died away, the political situation altered, 
the new Essenianism ceased to be suspected, and Naza- 
rene Christianity took its place among the parties of 
D2 


52 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


Judaism, attracting little notice and exciting no active 
hostility. 

| The Mischna was drawn up at the beginning of the 
third century, when Christianity was spreading rapidly 
through the Roman empire, and had excited the Roman 
emperors to fierce persecution of those who professed it. 
Yet Jehuda the Holy says not a word about Christ or 
Christianity. 

He and those whose sayings he quotes had no suspi- 
cion that this religion, which was gaining ground every 
day among the Gentiles, had sprung from the teaching 
of a Jew. Christianity ruffled not the surface of Jew- 
dom. The harmless Nazarenes were few, and were as 
strict observers of the Law as the straitest Pharisees. 

And if Christianity was thus a matter of indifference 
to the Jews, no wonder that every recollection of Jesus 
of Nazareth, every tradition of his birth, his teaching, 


| his death, had died away, so that, even at the close of 


ee A ENO» 


the second century, Origen could charge his Jew oppo- 
nent with knowing nothing of Jesus save what he had 
learned from the Gospels. 

The Mischna became in turn the subject of commen- 
tary and interpretation by the Rabbis. The explana- 


| tions of famous Rabbis, who taught on the Mischna, 


were collected, and called Gemara (the Complement), 


because with it the collection of rabbinical expositions 
‘of the Law was completed. 


There are two editions of the Gemara, one made in 
Palestine and called the Jerusalem Gemara, the other 


| made at Babylon. 


᾿ 
" 


The Jerusalem Gemara was compiled about A.D. 390, 
under the direction of the Patriarch of Tiberias. But 
there was a second Jewish Patriarchate at Babylon, 
which lasted till A.D. 1038, whereas that of Tiberias 
was extinguished, as has been already said, in A.D. 420. 


THE TALMUD. 53 


Among the Babylonish Jews, under the direction of their 
Patriarch, an independent school of commentators on 
the Mischna had arisen. Their opinions were collected ' 
about the year A.D. 500, and compose the Babylonish 


Gemara. This latter Gemara is held by modern Jews 


in higher esteem than the Jerusalem Gemara. 


The Mischna, which is the same to both Gemaras, to- 
gether with one of the commentaries and glosses, called 


Mekilta and Massektoth, form either the Jerusalem or 
the Babylonish Talmud. 

All the Jewish historians who speak of the compila- 
tion of the Gemara of Babylon, are almost unanimous 
on three points: that the Rabbi Ashi was the first to 
begin the compilation, but that death interrupted him 
before its completion; that he had for his assistant 
another doctor, the Rabbi Avina; and that a certain 
Rabbi Jose finished the work seventy-three years after 
the death of Rabbi Ashi. Rabbi Ashi is believed to 
have died A.D. 427, consequently the Babylonish Tal- 
mud was completed in A.D. 500. 

St. Jerome (d. 420) was certainly acquainted with the 
Mischna, for he mentions it by name.t 

St. Ephraem (d. 378) says: 


“The Jews have had four sorts of traditions which they 
eall Repetitions (devrepwoerc). The first bear the name of 
Moses the Prophet; they attribute the second to a doctor 
named Akiba or Bar Akiba. The third pass for being those 
of a certain Andan or Annan, whom they call also Judas; and 
they maintain that the sons of Assamonzeus were the authors 
of the fourth. It is from’ these four sources that all those 
doctrines among them are derived, which, however futile they 


1 “Quante traditiones Pharisworum sint, quas hodie vocant δευτερώσεις 
et quam aniles fabule, evolvere nequeo: neque enim libri patitur magni- 
tudo, et pleraque tam turpia sunt ut erubescam dicere.”’ 


i 


es! 


54 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


may be, by them are esteemed as the most profound science, 
and of which they speak with ostentation.” 4 


From this it appears that St. Ephraem was acquainted 
not only with the Mischna, but with the Gemara, then 
in process of formation. 

Both the Jerusalem and the Babylonish Gemara, in 


' their interpretations of the Mischna, mention Jesus and 


the apostles, or, at all events, have been supposed to do 
so. At the time when both Gemaras were drawn up, 
Christianity was the ruling religion in the Roman em- 
pire, and the Rabbis could hardly ignore any longer the 
Founder of the new religion. But their statements con- 
cerning Jesus are untrustworthy, because so late. Had 


| they occurred in the Mischna, they might have deserved 


a 


or 


attention. 

But before we consider the passages containing allu- 
sions to Jesus, it will be well to quote a very singular 
anecdote in the Jerusalem Gemara :" 


“It happened that the cow of a Jew who was ploughing 
the ground began to low. An Arab (or a traveller) who was 
passing, and who understood the language of beasts, on hear- 
ing this lowing said to the labourer, ‘Son of a Jew! son of a 
Jew! loose thine ox and set it free from the plough, for the 
Temple is fallen.’ But as the ox lowed a second time, he 
said, ‘Son of a Jew! son of a Jew! yoke thy ox, join her to 
the plough, for the Messiah is born.’ ‘ What is his name?’ 
asked the Jew. ‘oDimn2\D, the Consoler,’ replied the Arab. 
‘And what is the name of his father?’ asked the Jew. 
‘ Hezekiah,’ answered the Arab. ‘And whence comes he?’ 
‘From the royal palace of Bethlehem Juda.’ Then the Jew 
sold his ox and his plough, and becoming a seller of children’s 
clothes went to Bethlehem, where he found the mother of the 
Consoler afflicted, because that, on the day he was born, the 


1 Heres. xiii. 2 Beracoth, xi. a. 


THE TALMUD. 55 


Temple had been destroyed. But the other women, to con- 
sole her, said that her son, who had caused the ruin of the 
Temple, would speedily rebuild it. Some days after, she 
owned to the seller of children’s clothes that the Consoler 
had been ravished from her, and that she knew not what had 
become of him. Rabbi Bun observes thereupon that there 
was no need to learn from an Arab that the Messiah would 
appear at the moment of the fall of the Temple, as the 
prophet Isaiah had predicted this very thing in the two 
verses, x. 94 and xi. 1, on the ruin of the Temple, and the 
cessation of the daily sacrifice, which took place at the siege 
by the Romans, or by the impious kingdom.” | 


This is a very curious story, and its appearance in the 
Talmud is somewhat difficult to understand. 

We must now pass on to those passages which have 
been supposed to refer to our Lord. 

In the Babylonish Gemara? it is related that when 
King Alexander Jannzus persecuted the Rabbis, the 
Rabbi Jehoshua, son of Parachias, fled with his disciple 
Jesus to Alexandria in Egypt, and there both received 
instruction in Egyptian magic. On their way back to 
Judea, both were hospitably lodged by a woman. Next 
day, as Jehoshua and his disciple were continuing their 
journey, the master praised the hospitality of their 
hostess, whereupon his disciple remarked that she was 
not only a hospitable but a comely woman. 

Now as it was forbidden to Rabbis to look with admi- 
ration on female beauty, the Rabbi Jehoshua was so 
angry with his disciple, that he pronounced on him ex- 
communication and a curse. Jesus after this separated 
from his master, and gave himself up wholly to the 
study of magic. 

The name Jesus is Jehoshua Grecised. Both mas- 


1 Tract. Sanhedrim, fol. 107, and Sota, fol. 47. 


56 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


ter and pupil in this legend bore the same name, but 
that of the pupil is in the Talmud abbreviated into 
Jeschu. 

This story is introduced in the Gemara to illustrate 
the obligation incumbent on a Rabbi to keep custody 
over his eyes. It bears no signs of having been forced 
in so as to give expression to antipathy against Jeschu. 

That this Jeschu is our blessed Lord is by no means 
evident. On the contrary, the balance of probability is 
that the pupil of Jehoshua Ben Perachia was an en- 
tirely different person. 

This Jehoshua, son of Perachia, is a known historical 
personage. He was one of the Sanhedrim in the reign 
of Alexander Janneus. He began to teach as Rabbi in 
the year of the world 3606, or B.C. 154. Alexander 
Janneus, son of Hyrcanus, was king of the Jews in 
B.C. 106. The Pharisees could not endure that the 
royal and high-priestly functions should be united in 
the same person; they therefore broke out in revolt. 
The civil war caused the death of some 50,000, accord- 
ing to Josephus. When Alexander had suppressed the 
revolt, he led 800 prisoners to the fortress of Bethome, 
and crucified them before the eyes of his concubines at 
a grand banquet he gave. 

The Pharisees, and those of the Sanhedrim who had 
not fallen into his hands, sought safety in flight. It was 
then probably that Jehoshua, son of Perachia, went down 
into Egypt and was accompanied by Jeschu. 

Jehoshua was buried at Chittin, but the exact date 
of his death is not known. 

Alexander Jannzus died B.C. 79, after a reign of 
twenty - seven years, whilst besieging the castle of 
Ragaba on the further side of Jordan. 

It will be seen at once that the date of the Talmudic 


1 Bartolocci : Bibliotheca Maxima Rabbinica, sub. nom. 


THE TALMUD. 57 


Jeschu is something like a century earlier than that of 
the Jesus of the Gospels. 

Moreover, it cannot be said that Jewish tradition 
asserts their identity. On the contrary, learned Jewish 
writers have emphatically denied that the Jeschu of the 
Talmud is the Jesus of the Gospels. 

In the “ Disputation” of the Rabbi Jechiels with 
Nicolas, a convert, occurs this statement: “This (which 
is related of Jesus and the Rabbi Joshua, son of Pera- 
chia) contains no reference to him whom Christians 
honour as a God;” and then he points out that the im- 
possibility of reconciling the dates is enough to prove 
that the disciple of Joshua Ben Perachia was a person 
altogether distinct from the Founder of Christianity. 

The Rabbi Lippmann? gives the same denial, and 
shows that Jesus of the Gospels was a contemporary of 
Hillel, whereas the Jeschu of the anecdote lived from 
two to three generations earlier. 

The Rabbi Salman Zevi entered into the question 
with great care in a pamphlet, and produced ten reasons 
for concluding that the Jeschu of the Talmud was not 
the Jesus, son of Mary, of the Evangelists.” 

We can see now how it was that the Jew of Celsus 
brought against our Lord the charge of having learned 
magic in Egypt. He had heard in the Rabbinic schools 
the anecdote of Jeschu, pupil of Jehoshua, son of Pera- 
chia,—an anecdote which could scarcely fail to be nar- 
rated to all pupils. He at once concluded that this Jeschu 
was the Jesus of the Christians, without troubling him- 
self with the chronology. 

In the Mischna, Tract. Sabbath, fol. 104, it is forbidden 
to make marks upon the skin. The Babylonish Gemara 


1 Sepher Nizzachon, n. 337. 
2 Hisenmenger : Neuentdecktes Judenthum, I. pp. 231-7. K6nigsberg, 
1711. 
D 3 


58 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


observes on this passage: “Did not the son of Stada 
mark the magical arts on his skin, and bring them with 
him out of Egypt?” This son of Stada is Jeschu, as 
will presently appear. | 

In the Mischna of Tract. Sanhedrim, fol. 43, it is ordered 
that he who shall be condemned to death by stoning 
shall be led to the place of execution with a herald 
going before him, who shall proclaim the name of the 
offender, and shall summon those who have anything to 
say in mitigation of the sentence to speak before the 
sentence is put in execution. 

On this the Babylonish Gemara remarks, “ There exists 
a tradition: On the rest-day before the Sabbath they 
crucified Jeschu. For forty days did the herald go before 
him and proclaim aloud, He is to be stoned to death 
because he has practised evil, and has led the Israelites 
astray, and provoked them to schism. Let any one who 
can bring evidence of his innocence come forward and 
speak! But as nothing was produced which could esta- 
blish his innocence, he was crucified on the rest-day of 
the Passah (6. the day before the Passover).” 

The Mischna of Tract. Sanhedrim, fol. 67, treats of the 
command in Deut. xiii. 6—11, that any Hebrew who 
should introduce the worship of other gods should be 
stoned with stones. On this the Gemara of Babylon 
relates that, in the city of Lydda, Jeschu was heard 
through a partition endeavouring to persuade a Jew to 
worship idols; whereupon he was brought forth and 
crucified on the eve of the Passover. “None of those 
who are condemned to death by the Law are spied upon 
except only those (seducers of the people). How are 
they dealt with? They light a candle in an inner 
chamber, and place spies in an outer room, who may 
watch and listen to him (the accused). But he does not 
see them. Then he whom the accused had formerly 


THE TALMUD. 59 


endeavoured to seduce says to him, ‘ Repeat, I pray you, 
what you told me before in private.” Then, should he 
do so, the other will say further, ‘ But how shall we leave 
our God in heaven and serve idols?’ Now should the 
accused be converted and repent at this saying, it is 
well; but if he goes on to say, That is our affair, and so 
and so ought we to do, then the spies must lead him off 
to the house of judgment and stone him. This is what 
was done to the son of Stada at Lud, and they hung 
him up on the eve of the Passover.”! And the Tract. 
Sanhedrim says, “It is related that on the eve of the 
Sabbath they crucified Jeschu, a herald going before 
him,” as has been already quoted; and then follows the 
comment: “ Ula said, Will you not judge him to have 
been the son of destruction, because he is a seducer of 
the people? For the Merciful says (Deut. xiii. 8), Thou 
shalt not spare him, neither shalt thou conceal him. But 
I, Jesus, am heir to the kingdom. Therefore (the herald) 
went forth proclaiming that he was to be stoned because. 
he had done an evil thing, and had seduced the people, 
and led them into schism. And (Jeschu) went forth to 
be stoned with stones because he had done an evil thing, 
and had seduced the people and led them into schism.” 
The Babylonish Gemara to the Mischna of Tract. 
Sabbath gives the following perplexing account of the 
parents of Jeschu:? “They stoned the son of Stada in 
Lud (Lydda), and crucified him on the eve of the Pass- 
over. This Stada’s son was Pandira’s son. Rabbi Chasda 
said Stada’s husband was Pandira’s master, namely 
Paphos, son of Jehuda. But how was Stada his mother ? 
His (ze. Pandira’s) mother was a woman’s hair-dresser. 
As they say in Pombeditha (the Babylonish school by 
the Euphrates), this one went astray (S’tath-da) from 
her husband.” | 
1 Tract. Sabbath, fol. 67. ® Ibid. fol. 104. 


00 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 





The Gloss or Paraphrase on this is: “Stada’s son 
was not the son of Paphos, son of Jehuda; No. As 
Rabbi Chasda observed, Paphos had a servant named 
Pandira. Well, what has that to do withit? Tell us 
how it came to pass that this son was born to Stada. 
Well, it was on this wise. Miriam, the mother of Pan- 
dira, used to dress Stada’s hair, and.... Stada became 
a mother by Pandira, son of Miriam. As they say in 
Pombeditha, Stada by name and Stada by nature.”? 

The obscurity of the passage arises from various causes. 
R. Chasda is a punster, and plays on the double meaning 
of “ Baal” for “husband” and “master.” There is also 
ambiguity in the pronoun “his;” it is difficult to say to 
whom it always refers. The Paraphrase is late, and is 
a conjectural explanation of an obscure passage. 

It is clear that the Jeschu of the Talmud was the 
son of one Stada and Pandira. But the name Pandira 
having the appearance of being a woman’s name,’ this 
led to additional confusion, for some said that Pandira 
was his mother’s name. 

The late Gloss does not associate Stada with the 
blessed Virgin. It gives the name of Miriam or Mary 


1 The passage is not easy to understand. I give three Latin translations 
ef it, one by Cl. Schickardus, the second quoted from Scheidius (Loca 
Talm. i. 2). “Filius Satde, filius Pandeire fuit. Dixit Raf Chasda: Ama- 
sius Pandeire, maritus Paphos filius Jehude fuit. At quomodo mater ejus 
Satda? Mater ejus Mirjam, comptrix mulierum fuit.” ‘‘ Filius Stade 
filias Pandire est, Dixit Rabbi Chasda: Maritus seu procus matris ejus 
fuit Stada, iniens Pandiram. Maritus Paphus filius Jude ipse est, mater ejus 
Stada, mater ejus Maria,” &c. Lightfoot, Matt. xxvii. 56, thus translates 
it: ‘* Lapidérunt filium Satde in Lydda, et suspenderunt eum in vesperd 
Paschatis. Hic autem filius Satde fuit filius Pandire. Dixit quidem Rabb 
Chasda, Maritus (matris ejus) fuit Satda, maritus Pandira, maritus Papus 
filius Jude: sed tamen dico matrem ejus fuisse Satdam, Mariam videlicet, 


plicatricem capillorum mulierum: sicut dicunt in Panbeditha, Declinavit 
ista a marito suo.” 


2 ΓΙ 3. Asa man’s name it occurs in 2 Targum, Esther vii. 


THE TALMUD. 61 


to be the mother of Pandira, the father of Jeschu. The 
Jew of Celsus says that the mother of Jesus was a poor 
needlewoman, who also span for her livelihood. He pro- 
bably recalled what was said of Miriam, the mother of 
Panthera. and grandmother of Jeschu, and applied it 
to St. Mary the Virgin, misled by the obscurity of the 
saying of Chasda, which was orally repeated in the Rab- 
binic schools. 

The Jerusalem Gemara to Tract. Sabbath says: “The 
sister’s son of Rabbi Jose swallowed poison, or something 
deadly. There came to him a man and conjured him in 
the name of Jeschu, son of Pandeira, and he was healed 
or made easy. But when he went forth it was said to 
him, How hast thou healed him? He answered, by 
using such and such words. Then he (R. Jose) said to 
him, It had been better for him to have died than to 
have heard this name. And so it was with him (1.6. the 
boy died).” 

In another place:' “ Eleasar, the son of Damah, was 
bitten by a serpent. There came to him James, a man 
of the town of Sechania, to cure him in the name of 
Jeschu, son of Pandeira; but the Rabbi Ismael would 
not suffer it, but said, It is not permitted to thee, son 
of Damah. But he (James) said, Suffer me, and I will 
bring an argument against thee which is lawful. But 
he would not suffer him.” 

The Gemara to Tract. Sanhedrim, fol. 43, mentions five 
disciples of Jeschu Ben-Stada, namely, Matthai, Nakai, 
Netzer, Boni and Thoda. It says :— 


“ Jeschu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer and Boni, 
and also Thoda. They brought Matthai (to the tribunal) to 
pronounce sentence of death against him. He said, Shall Mat- 
thai suffer when it is written (Ps. xlii. 3), say When shall 


1 Avoda Sava, fol. 27. 


62 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 





I come to appear before the presence of God? ‘They replied, 
Shall not Matthai die when it is written, sm When shall 
he die and his name perish? ‘They produced Nakai. He 
said, Shall Nakai ΝΣ die? Is it not written, The innocent 
spn) slay thou not? (Exod. xxiii. 7). They answered hin, 
Shall not Nakai die when it is written, In the secret places 
does he murder the innocent? (Ps. x. 8). When they brought 
forth Netzer, he said unto them, Shall Netzer -x3 be slain ? 
15 it not written (Isa. xi. 1), A branch ὙΣΣῚ shall grow out 
of his roots? They replied, Shall not Netzer die because it 
is written (Isa. xiv. 19), Thou art cast out of thy grave like 
an abominable branch? They brought forth Bonis3)3. He 
said, Shall Boni die the death when it is written (Ex. iv. 22), 
3, My son, my firstborn, is Israel? They replied, Shall not 
Boni die the death when it is written (Ex. v. 23), So I will 
slay thy son, thy firstborn son? They led out Thoda ΓΤ. 
He said, Shall Thoda die when it is written (Ps. ὁ. 1), A 
psalm pnd of thanksgiving? They replied, Shall not Thoda 
die when it is written (Ps. 1. 23), He that sacrificeth praise, 
he honoureth me?” 


This is all that the Gemara tells us about Jeschu, 
son of Stada or Pandira. It behoves us now to consider 
whether he can have been the same person as our Lord. 

That there really lived such a person as Jeschu Ben- 
Pandira, and that he was a disciple of the Rabbi Jehos- 
hua Ben-Perachia, I see no reason to doubt. 

That he escaped from Alexander Janneus with his 
master into Egypt, and there studied magical arts; that 
he returned after awhile to Judea, and practised his 
necromantic arts in his own country, is also not impro- 
bable. Somewhat later the Jews were famous, or in- 
famous, throughout the Roman world as conjurors and 
exorcists. Egypt was the head-quarters of magical 
studies. 

That Jeschu, son of Pandira, was stoned to death, in 


THE TALMUD. 63 


accordance with the Law, for having practised magic, is 
also probable. The passages quoted are unanimous in 
stating that he was stoned for this offence. The Law 
decreed this as the death sorcerers were to undergo. 

In the Talmud, Jeschu is first stoned and then crucified. 
The object of this double punishment being attributed 
_ to him is obvious. The Rabbis of the Gemara period had 
begun—like the Jew of Celsus—to confuse Jesus son of 
Mary with Jeschu the sorcerer. Their tradition told of 
a Jeschu who was stoned; Christian tradition, of a Jesus 
who was crucified. They combined the punishments 
and fused the persons into one. But this was done very 
clumsily. It is possible that more than one Jehoshua 
has contributed to form the story of Jeschu in the Tal- 
mud. For his mother Stada is said to have been married 
to Paphos, son of Jehuda. Now Paphos Ben-Jehuda is 
a Rabbi whose name recurs several times in the Talmud 
as an associate of the illustrious Rabbi Akiba, who lived 
after the destruction of Jerusalem, and had his school 
at Bene-Barah. To him the first composition of the 
Mischna arrangements is ascribed. As a follower of the 
pseudo-Messiah Barcochab, in the war of Trajan and 
Hadrian, he sealed a life of enthusiasm with a martyr’s 
death, A.D. 135, at the capture of Bether. When the 
Jews were dispersed and forbidden to assemble, Akiba 
collected the Jews and continued instructing them in 
the Law. Paphus remonstrated with him on the risk. 
Akiba answered by a parable. “A fox once went to 
the river side, and saw the fish flying in all directions. 
What do you fear? asked the fox. The nets spread by 
the sons of men, answered the fish, Ah, my friends, 
said the fox, come on shore by me, and so you will 
escape the nets that drag the water.” A few days after, 
Akiba was in prison, and Paphus also. Paphus said, 
“ Blessed art thou, Rabbi Akiba, because thou art im- 


64 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


prisoned for the words of the Law, and woe is me who 
am imprisoned for matters of no importance.” ? 

We naturally wonder how it is that Stada, the mother 
of Jeschu, who was born about B.C. 120, should be re- 
presented as the wife of Paphus, son of Jehuda, who 
died about A.D. 150, two centuries and a half later. 

It is quite possible that this Paphus lost his wife, 
who eloped from him with one Pandira, and became 
mother of a son named Jehoshua. The name of Jehoshua 
or Jesus is common enough. 

In Gittin, Paphus is again mentioned. “There is who 
finds a fly in his cup, and he takes it out, and will not 
drink of it. And this is what did Paphus Ben-Jehuda, 
who kept the door shut upon his wife, and nevertheless 
she ran away from him.” ? 

Mary, the plaiter of woman’s hair, occurs in Chajigah. 
“Rabbi Bibai, when the angel of death at one time stood 
before him, said to his messenger, Go, and bring hither 
Mary, the women’s hair-dresser. And the young man 
went,” &c.? 

According to the Toledoth Jeschu, as we shall see 
presently, Mary’s instructor is the Rabbi Simon Ben 
Schetach. She is visited and questioned by the Rabbi 
Akiba. This visitation by Akiba is given in the Tal- 
mudic tract, Calla,* and thence the author of the Tole- 
doth Jeschu drew it. 

“ As once the Elders sat at the gate, there passed two 
boys before them. One uncovered his head, the other 
did not. Then said the Rabbi Eheser, The latter is cer- 
tainly a Mamser; but the Rabbi Jehoshua® said, He is 
a Ben-hannidda. Akiba said, He is both a Mamser and 
a Ben-hannidda. They said to him, How canst thou 

1 Talmud, Tract. Beracoth, ix. fol. 61, ὃ. 2 Gittin, fol. 90, a. 

3 Chajigah, fol. 4, ὃ. 4 Calla, fol. 18, ὅ: 

5 Son of Levi, according to the Toledoth Jeschu of Huldrich. 


THE TALMUD. 65 


oppose the opinion of thy companions? He answered, 
I will prove what I have said. Then he went to the 
boy’s mother, who was sitting in the market selling 
fruit, and said to her, My daughter, if you will tell me 
the truth I will promise you eternal life. She said to 
him, Swear to me. And he swore with his lips, but in 
his heart he did not ratify the oath.” Then he learned 
what he desired to know, and came back to his com- 
panions and told them all 

We have here corroborative evidence that this Stada 
and her son Jeschu lived at the time of Akiba and 
Paphus, that is, after the fall of Jerusalem, in the earlier 
part of the second century. 

I think that probably the story grew up thus: 

A certain Jehoshua, in the reign of Alexander Jan- 
nus, went down into Egypt, and there learnt magic. 
He returned to Judea, where he practised it, but was 
arrested at Lydda and executed by order of the Sanhe- 
drim, by being stoned to death. 

But who was this Jehoshua? Tradition was silent. 
However, there was a floating recollection of a Jehoshua 
born of one Stada, wife of Paphus, son of Jehuda, the 
companion of Akiba. The two Jehoshuas were con- 
founded together. Thus stood the story when Origen 
wrote against Celsus in A.D. 176. 

By A.D. 500 it had grown considerably. The Jew of 
Celsus had already fused Jesus of Nazareth with the 
other two Jehoshuas. This led to the Rabbis of the 
Gemara relating that Jehoshua was both stoned and 
crucified. 

I do not say that this certainly is the origin of the 
story as it appears in the Talmud, but it bears on the 


1 In the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, Jesus as a bey behaves without 
respect to his master and the elders ; thence possibly this story was de- 
rived. | 


66 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


face of it strong likelihood that it is. Jehoshua who 
went into Egypt could not have been stoned to death 
after the destruction of Jerusalem and the revolt of Bar- 
cochab, for then the Jews had not the power of life and 
death in their hands. The execution must have taken 
place long before ; yet the Rabbis whose names appear in 
connection with the story—always excepting Jehoshua 
son of Perachia—all belong to the second century after 
Christ. 

The solution 1 propose is simple, and it explains what 
otherwise would be inexplicable. 

If it be a true solution, it proves that the Jews in 
A.D. 500, when the Babylonian Gemara was’completed, 
had no traditions whatever concerning Jesus of Naza- 
reth. 

We shall see next how the confusion that originated 
in the Talmud grew into the monstrous romance of the 
Toledoth Jeschu, the Jewish counter-Gospel of the 
Middle Ages. 


Vv. 
THE COUNTER-GOSPELS. 


In the thirteenth century it became known among | 
the Christians that the Jews were in possession of an | 
anti-evangel. It was kept secret, lest the sight of it | 
should excite tumults, spoliation and massacre. But of 
the fact of its existence Christians were made aware by 
the account of converts. 

There are, in reality, two such anti-evangels, each 
called Toldoth Jeschu, not recensions of an earlier text, 
but independent collections of the stories circulating 
among the Jews relative to the life of our Lord. 

The name of Jesus, which in Hebrew is Joshua or 
Jehoshua (the Lord will sanctify) is in both contracted 
into Jeschu by the rejection of an Azn, Iw» for DW». 
The Rabbi Elias, in his Tischbi, under the word 
Jeschu, says, “ Because the Jews will not acknowledge 
him to be the Saviour, they do not call him Jeschua, but 
reject the Az and call him Jeschu.” And the Rabbi 
Abraham Perizol, in his book Maggers Abraham, c. 59, 
says, “His name was Jeschua; but as Rabbi Moses, the 
son of Majemoun of blessed memory, has written it, and 
as we find it throughout the Talmud, it is written Jeschu. 
They have carefully left out the Ain, because he was not 
able to save himself.” 

The Talmud in the Tract. Sanhedrim! says, “It is not 
lawful to name the name of a false God.” On this 
account the Jews, rejecting the mission of our Saviour, 


1 Fol. 114. 


.μ ἢ" 


68 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


refused to pronounce his name without mutilating it. 


By omitting the Ain, the Cabbalists were able to give a 
significance to the name. In its curtailed form it is 
composed of the letters Jod, Schin, Vau, which are 
taken to stand for 127727) Yaw ma jimmach schemo 
vezichrono, “ His name and remembrance shall be ex- 
tinguished.” This is the reason given by the Toledoth 
Jeschu. 

Who were the authors of the books called Toledoth 
Jeschu, the two counter-Gospels, is not known. 

Justin Martyr, who died A.D. 63, speaks of the blas- 


| phemous writings of the Jews about Jesus ;* but that 


they contained traditions of the life of the Saviour can 


_hardly be believed in presence of the silence of Josephus 


and Justus, and the ignorance of the Jew of Celsus. 
Origen says in his answer, that “though innumerable 
lies and calumnies had been forged against the vener- 
able Jesus, none had dared to charge him with any 
intemperance whatever.”? He speaks confidently, with 
full assurance. If he had ever met with such a calumny, 
he would not have denied its existence, he would have 
set himself to work to refute it. Had such calumnious 
writings existed, Origen would have been sure to know 
of them. We may therefore be quite satisfied that none 
such existed in his time, the middle of the third 
century. 

The Toledoth Jeschu comes before us with a flourish 
of trumpets from Voltaire. “Le Toledos Jeschu,” says 
he, “est le plus ancien écrit Juif, qui nous ait été trans- 
mis contre notre religion. C’est une vie de Jesus Christ, 
toute contraire a nos Saints Evangiles: elle parait étre: 
du premier siécle, et méme écrite avant les evangiles.” ὃ 


1 Justin Mart. Dialog. cum Tryph. c. 17 and 108. 
2 Cont. Cels. lib, iii. 
3 Lettres sur les Juifs. Gluvres, I. 69, p. 36. 


THE COUNTER-GOSPELS. 69 


A fair specimen of reckless judgment on a matter of 
importance, without having taken the trouble to ex- 
amine the grounds on which it was made! Luther knew 
more of it than did Voltaire, and put it in a very dif- 
ferent place :— 


“The proud evil spirit carries on all sorts of mockery in 
this book. First he mocks God, the Creator of heaven and 
earth, and His Son Jesus Christ, as you may see for yourself, 
‘if you believe as'a Christian that Christ is the Son of God. 
Next he mocks us, all. Christendom, in that we believe in 
such a Son of God. Thirdly, he mocks his own fellow Jews, 
telling them such disgraceful, foolish, senseless affairs, as of 
brazen dogs and cabbage-stalks and such like, enough to make 
all dogs bark themselves to death, if they could understand it, 
at such a pack of idiotic, blustering, raging, nonsensical fools. 
Is not that a masterpiece of mockery which can thus mock 
all three at once? The fourth mockery is this, that whoever 
wrote it has made a fool of himself, as we, thank God, may 
see any day.” 


Luther knew the book, and translated it, or rather 
condensed it, in his “Schem Hamphoras.” ὦ 

There are two versions of the Toledoth Jeschu, dif- 
fering widely from one another. The first was published 
by Wagenseil, of Altdorf, in 1681. The second by 
Huldrich at Leyden in 1705. Neither can boast of 
an antiquity greater than, at the outside, the twelfth 
century. It is difficult to say with certainty which is 
the earlier of the two. Probably both came into use 
about the same time; the second certainly in Germany, 
for it speaks of Worms in the German empire. 

According to the first, Jeschu (Jesus) was born in the 
year of the world 4671 (B.C. 910), in the reign of Alex- 


1 Luther’s Works, Wittemberg, 1556, T. V. pp. 509—535. The passage 
quoted is on p. 513. 


70 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS,. 


ander Janneus (B.C. 106—79)! He was the son of 
Joseph Pandira and Mary, a widow’s daughter, the 
sister of Jehoshua, who was affianced to Jochanan, dis- 
ciple of Simeon Ben Schetah; and Jeschu became the 
pupil of the Rabbi Elchanan. Mary is of the tribe of 
Juda. 

According to the second, Jeschu was born in the retgn 
of Herod the Proselyte, and was the son of Mary, 
daughter of Calpus, and sister of Simeon, son of Calpus,. 
by Joseph Pandira, who carried her off from her husband, 
Papus, son of Jehuda. Jeschu was brought up by 
Joshua, son of Perachia, in the days of the illustrious 
Rabbi Akiba! Mary is of the tribe of Benjamin. 

The anachronisms of both accounts are so gross as to 
prove that they were drawn up at a very late date, and 
by Jews singularly ignorant of the chronology of their 
history. 

In the first, Mary is affianced to Jochanan, disciple of 
Simeon Ben Schetah. Now Schimon or Simeon, son of 
Scheta, is a well-known character. He is said to have 
strangled eighty witches in one day, and to have been 
the companion of Jehudu Ben Tabai He flourished 
B.C. 70. 

In the second life we hear of Mary being the sister 
of Simeon Ben Kalpus (Chelptu). He also is a well- 
known Rabbi, of whom many miracles are related. He 
lived in the time of the Emperor Antoninus, before 
whom he stood as a disciple, when an old man (circ. 
A.D. 160). 

In this also the Rabbi Akiba is introduced. Akiba 
died A.D. 135. Also the Rabbi Jehoshua Ben Levi 
Now this Rabbi’s date can also be fixed with tolerable 
accuracy. He was the teacher of the Rabbi Jochanan, 
who compiled the Jerusalem Talmud. His date is 
A.D. 220. 


THE COUNTER-GOSPELS. γα! 


We have thus, in the two lives οἵ Jeschu, the follow- 
ing personages introduced as contemporaries : 


fT. HH: 
Jeschu born (date given), B.C. 910. | Herod the Great, B.C. 70—4. 
Alexander Jannzus, B.C. 106—79. | R. Jehoshua Ben Perachia, c. B.C. 90. 
R. Simeon Ben Schetach, B.C. 70. | R. Akiba, A.D. 135. 


R. Papus Ben Jehuda, c. A.D. 140. 
R. Jehoshua Ben Levi, c. A.D. 220. 


The second Toledoth Jeschu closes with, “These are 
the words of Jochanan Ben Zaccai;” but it is not clear 
whether it is intended that the book should be included 
in “The words of Jochanan,” or whether the reference 
is only to a brief sentence preceding this statement, 
“Therefore have they no part or lot in Israel. The Lord 
bless his people Israel with peace.” Jochanan Ben 
Zaccai was a priest and ruler of Israel for forty years, 
from A.D. 30 or 33 to A.D. 70 or 73. He died at Jamnia, 
near Jerusalem (Jabne of the Philistines), and was 
buried at Tiberias. 

Nor are these anachronisms the only proofs of the 
ignorance of the composers of the two anti-evangels. 
In the first, on the death of King Alexander Janneus, 
the government falls into the hands of his wife Helena, 
who is represented as being “also called Oleina, and 
was the mother of King Mumbasius, afterwards called 
Hyrcanus, who was killed by his servant Herod.” 

The wife of Alexander Jannzus was Alexandra, not 
Helena; she reigned from B.C. 79 to B.C. 71. She was 
the mother of Hyrcanus and Aristobulus; but was quite 
distinct from Oleina, mother of Mumbasius, and Mum- 
basius was a very different person from Hyrcanus. 
Oleina was a queen of Adiabene in Assyria. 

The first Life refers to the Talmud: “This is the same 


72 JEWISH ANTE-GOSPELS. 


Mary who dressed and curled women’s hair, mentioned 
several times in the Talmud.” 

Both give absurd anecdotes to account for monks 
wearing shaven crowns; both reasons are different. 

In the first Life, the Christian festivals of the Ascen- 
sion “forty days after Jeschu was stoned,” that of Christ- 
mas, and the Circumcision “eight days after,” are spoken 
of as institutions of the Christian Church. 

In the VIIIth Book of the Apostolical Constitutions, 
the festivals of the Nativity and the Ascension are 
spoken of, consequently they must have been kept holy 
from a very early age. But it was not so with the 
feast of the Circumcision. 

The 1st of Jannary was a great day among the 
heathen. In the Homilies of the Fathers down to the 
eighth century, the 1st of January is called the “ Feast of 
Satan and Hell,” and the faithful are cautioned against 
observing it. All participation in the festivities of that 
day was forbidden by the Council “in Trullo,” in A.D. 
692, and again in the Council of Rome, A.D. 744. 

Pope Gelasius (A.D. 496) forbade all observance of 
the day, according to Baronius,? in the hope of rooting 
out every remembrance of the pagan ceremonies which 
were connected with it. In ancient Sacramentaries is a 
mass on this day, “de prohibendo ab idolis.” Never- 
theless, traces of the celebration of the Circumcision of 
Christ occur in the fourth century; for Zeno, Bishop of 
Verona (d. A.D. 380), preached a sermon on it. In the 
ancient Mozarabic Kalendar, in the Martyrology wrongly 
attributed to St. Jerome, and in the Gelasian Sacramen- 
tary, the Circumcision is indicated on January 1. But 
though noted in the Kalendars, the day was, for the 
reason of its being observed as a heathen festival, not 

1 Lib. viii. 38. 2 Martyrol. Rom. ad. 1 Januar. 


THE COUNTER-GOSPELS. 73 


treated by the Church as a festival till very late. 
Litanies and penitential offices were appointed for it. 

The notice in the Toledoth Jeschu, therefore, points 
to a time when the feast was observed with outward 
demonstration of joy, and the sanction of the Church 
accorded to other festivities. 

The Toledoth Jeschu adopts the fable of the Sanhe- 
drim and King having sent out an account of the trial 
of Jesus to the synagogues throughout the world to 
obtain from them an expression of opinion. The syna- 
gogue of Worms remonstrated against the execution of 
Christ. “The people of Girmajesa (Germany) and all 
the neighbouring country round Girmajesa which is now 
_ called Wormajesa (Worms), and which 1165 in the realm 
of the Emperor, and the little council in the town of 
Wormajesa, answered the King (Herod) and said, Let 
Jesus go, and slay him not! Let him live till he falls 
and perishes of his own accord.” 

The synagogues of several cities in the Middle Ages 
did, in fact, produce apocryphal letters which they pre- 
tended had been written by their forefathers remon- 
strating with the Jewish Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and 
requesting that Jesus might be spared. An epistle was 
produced by the Jews of Ulm in A.D. 1348, another by 
the Jews of Ratisbon about the same date, from the 
council at Jerusalem to their synagogues.! The Jews 
of Toledo pretended to possess similar letters in the 
reign of Alfonso the Valiant, A.D. 1072. These letters 
probably served to protect them from feeling the full 
stress of persecution which oppressed the Jews else- 
where. 

The most astonishing ignorance of Gospel accounts of 
Christ and the apostles is observable in both anti- 
evangels. Matthias and Matthew are the same, so are 

1 Fabricius, Codex Apocryph. N.T. ii. p. 493. 
E 


ft 


74. JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 


John the Baptist and John the Apostle, whilst Thad- 
deus is said to be “also called Paul,” and Simon Peter 
is confounded with Simon Magus. 

These are instances of the confusion of times and per- 
sons into which these counter-Gospels have fallen, and 
they are sufficient to establish their late and worthless 
character. 

The two anti-Gospels are clearly not two editions of 
an earlier text. The only common foundation on which 


_ both were constructed was the mention of Jeschu, son 
of Panthera,in the Talmud. Add to this such distorted 
᾿ versions of Gospel stories as circulated among the Jews 


in the Middle Ages, and we have the constituents of 
both counter-Gospels. Both exhibit a profound igno- 
rance of the sacred text, but a certain acquaintance with 
prominent incidents in the narrative of the Evangelists, 
not derived directly from the Gospels, but, as I believe, 
from miracle-plays and pictorial and sculptured repre- 
sentations such as would meet the eye of a medieval 
Jew at every turn. 

We have not to cast about far for a reason which shall 
account for the production of these anti-evangels. 

The persecution to which the Jews were subjected in 
the Middle Ages from the bigotry of the rabble or the 


cupidity of princes, fanned their dislike for Christianity 


into a flame of intense mortal abhorrence of the Founder 
of that religion whose votaries were their deadliest foes. 
The Toledoth Jeschu is the utterance of this deep-seated 
hatred,—the voice of an oppressed people execrating him 
who had sprung from the holy race, and whose blood 
was weighing on their heads. 

And it is not improbable that the Gospel record of 
the patient, loving life of Jesus may have exerted an 


1 Whereas the bitter conflict of Simon Peter and Simon Magus was a 
subject well known in early Christian tradition. 


THE COUNTER-GOSPELS. 75 


influence on the young who ventured, with the daring 
curiosity of youth, to explore those peaceful pages. 
What answer had the Rabbis to make to those of their 
own religion who were questioning and wavering? They 
had no counter-record to oppose to the Gospels, no tra- 
dition wherewith to contest the history written by the 
Evangelists. The notices in the Talmud were scanty, 
incomplete. It was open to dispute whether these 
notices really related to Christ Jesus. 

Under such circumstances, a book which professed to 
give a true account of Jesus was certain to be hailed and 
accepted without too close a scrutiny as to its authen- 
ticity; much as in the twelfth century Joseph Ben 
Gorion’s “ Jewish War” was assumed to be authentic. 

The Toledoth Jeschu or “ Birth of Jesus” boldly iden- 
tified the Jesus of the Gospels with the Jeschu of the 
Talmud, and attempted to harmonize the Rabbinic and 
the Christian stories. | 

There is a certain likeness between the two counter- | 
Gospels, but this arises solely from each author being | 
actuated by the same motives as the other, and from | 
both deriving from common sources,—the Talmud and 
Jewish misrepresentations of Gospel events. ἱ 

But if there be a likeness, there is sufficient dissimi- | 
larity to make it evident that the two authors wrote | 
independently, and had no common written text to 
amplify and adorn. 


ἈΠ, 
THE FIRST TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 


WE will take first the WAGENSEIL edition of the 
TOLEDOTH JESCHU,’ and give an outline of the story, 
only suppressing the most offensive particulars, and com- 
menting on the narrative as we proceed. Wagenseil’s 
Toledoth Jeschu begins as follows: 


“Tn the year of the world 4671, in the days of King Jan- 
nus, a great misfortune befel Israel. There arose at that 
time a scape-grace, a wastrel and worthless fellow, of the 
fallen race of Judah, named Joseph Pandira. He was a well- 
built man, strong and handsome, but he spent his time in 
robbery and violence. His dwelling was at Bethlehem, in 
Juda. And there lived near him a widow with her daughter, 
whose name was Mirjam ; and this is the same Mirjam who 
dressed and curled women’s hair, who is mentioned several 
times in the Talmud.” 


It is remarkable that the author begins with the very 
phrase found in Josephus. He calls the appearance of 
our Lord “a great misfortune which befel Israel.” Jose- 
phus, after the passage which has been intruded into his 
text relative to the miracles and death of Christ, says, 
“ About this time another great misfortune set the Jews 
in commotion ;” from which it appears as if Josephus 
regarded the preaching of Christ as a great misfortune. 
That he made no such reference has been already shown. 


1 Wagenseil: Tela ignea Satan. Hoc est arcani et horribiles Judeorum 
adversus Christum Deum et Christianam religionem libri anecdoti; Altdorf, 
1681. : 


THE FIRST TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 7% 


The author also places the birth of Jesus, in accord- 
ance with the Talmud, in the reign of Alexander Jannzeus, 
who reigned from B.C. 106 to B.C. 79. He reckons from 
the creation of the world, and gives the year as 4671 
(B.C. 910). This manner of reckoning was only intro- 
duced among the Jews in the fourth century after Christ, 
and did not become common till the twelfth century. 

_ The Wagenseil Toledoth goes on to say that the widow 
engaged Mirjam to an amiable, God-fearing youth, named 
Jochanan (John), a disciple of the Rabbi Simeon, son of 
Shetach (ἢ. B.C. 70); but he went away to Babylon, 
and she became the mother of Jeschu by Joseph Pandira. 
The child was named Joshua, after his uncle, and was 
given to the Rabbi Elchanan to be instructed in the Law. 

One day Jeschu, when a boy, passed before the Rabbi 
Simeon Ben Shetach and other members of the Sanhe- 
drim without uncovering his head and bowing his knee. 
The elders were indignant. Three hundred trumpets 
were blown, and Jeschu was excommunicated and cast 
out of the Temple. Then he went away to Galilee, and 
spent there several years. 


““ Now at this time the unutterable Name of God was en- 
graved in the Temple on the corner-stone. For when King 
David dug the foundations, he found there a stone in the 
ground on which the Name of God was engraved, and he took 
it and placed it in the Holy of Holies. 

“But as the wise men feared lest some inquisitive youth 
should learn this Name, and be able thereby to destroy the 
world, which God avert! they made, by magic, two brazen 
lions, which they set before the entrance to the Holy of 
Holies, one on the right, the other on the left. 

“Now if any one were to go within, and learn the holy 
Name, then the lions would begin to roar as he came out, so 
that, out of alarm and bewilderment, he would lose his pre- 
sence of mind and forget the Name. 


78 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 


“And Jeschu left Upper Galilee, and came secretly. to 
Jerusalem, and went into the Temple and learned there the 
holy writing ; and after he had written the incommunicable 
Name on parchment, he uttered it, with intent that he might 
feel no pain, and then he cut into his flesh, and hid the 
parchment with its inscription therein. Then he uttered the 
Name once more, and made so that his flesh healed up again. 

«¢ And when he went out at the door, the lions roared, and 
he forgot the Name. Therefore he hasted outside the town, 
cut into his flesh, took the writing out, and when he had 
sufficiently studied the signs he retamed the Name in his 
memory.” 


It is scarcely necessary here to point out the amazing 
ignorance of the author of the Toledoth Jeschu in making 
David the builder of the Temple, and in placing the 
images of lions at the entrance to the Holy of Holies. 
The story is introduced because Jeschu, son of Stada, in 
the Talmud is said to have made marks on his skin. 
But the author knew his Talmud very imperfectly. The 
Babylonian Gemara says, “Did not the son of Stada 
mark the magical arts on his skin, and bring them with 
him out of Egypt?” The story in the Talmud which 
accounted for the power of Jeschu to work miracles was 
quite different from that in the Toledoth Jeschu. In 
the Talmud he has power by bringing out of Egypt, 
secretly cut on his skin, the magic arts there privately 
taught ; in the Toledoth he acquires his power by learn- 
ing the incommunicable Name and hiding it under his 
flesh. 

However, the author says, “ He could not have pene- 
trated into the Holy of Holies without the aid of magic ; 
for how would the holy priests and followers of Aaron 
have suffered him to enter there? This must certainly 
have been done by the aid of magic.” But the author 
gives no account of how Jeschu learned magic. That 


THE FIRST TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 79 


we ascertain from the Huldrich text, where we are told 
that Jeschu spent many years in Egypt, the head-quarters 
of those who practised magic. 

Having acquired this knowledge, Jeschu went into 
Galilee and proclaimed himself to have been the creator 
of the world, and born of a virgin, according to the pro- 
phecy of Isaiah (vu. 14). As a sign of the truth of his 
mission, he said : 


“‘ Bring me here a dead man, and I will restore him to life. 
Then all the people hasted and dug into a grave, but found 
nothing in it but bones. 

᾿ς Now when they told him that they had found only 
bones, he said, Bring them hither to me. 

“So when they had brought them, he placed the bones to- 
gether, and surrounded them with skin and flesh and muscles, 
so that the dead man stood up alive on his feet. 

“And when the people saw this, they wondered greatly ; 
and he said, Do ye marvel at this that I have done? Bring 
hither a leper, and I will heal him. 

“So when they had placed a leper before him, he gave him 
health in like manner, by means of the incommunicable Name. 
And all the people that saw this fell down before him, prayed 
to him and said, Truly thou art the Son of God ! 

“ But after five days the report of what had been done 
came to Jerusalem, to the holy city, and all was related that 
Jeschu had wrought in Galilee. Then all the people re- 
joiced greatly; but the elders, the pious men, and the com- 
pany of the wise men, wept bitterly. And the great and the 
little Sanhedrim mourned, and at length agreed that they 
would send a deputation to him. 

“For they thought that, perhaps, with God’s help, they 
might overpower him, and bring him to judgment, and con- 
demn him to death. 

“Therefore they sent unto him Ananias and Achasias, the 
noblest men of the little council; and when they had come to 
him, they bowed themselves before him reverently, in order to 


80 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 


deceive him as to their purpose. And he, thinking that they 
believed in him, received them with smiling countenance, and 
placed them in his assembly of profligates. 

“They said unto him, The most pious and illustrious 
among the citizens of Jerusalem sent us unto thee, to hear if 
it shall please thee to go to them; for they have heard say 
that thou art the Son of God. 

“Then answered Jeschu and said, They have heard aright. 
T will do all that they desire, but only on condition that both 
the great and lesser Sanhedrim and all who have despised my 
origin shall come forth to meet me, and shall honour and re- 
ceive me as servants of their Lord, when I come to them. 

“Thereupon the messengers returned to Jerusalem and re- 
lated all that they had heard. 

“Then answered the elders and the righteous men, We 
will do all that he desires. Therefore these men went again 
to Jeschu, and told him that it should be even as he had 
said. 

“ And Jeschu said, I will go forthwith on my way! And 
it came to pass, when he had come as far as Nob,! nigh unto 
Jerusalem, that he said to his followers, Have ye here a good 
and comely ass ἢ 

‘“‘They answered him that there was one even at hand. 
Therefore he said, Bring him hither to me. 

“ And a stately ass was brought unto him, and he sat upon 
it, and rode into Jerusalem. And as Jeschu entered into the 
city, all the people went forth to meet him. Then he cried, 
saying, Of me did the prophet Zacharias testify, Behold thy 
King cometh unto thee, righteous and a Saviour, poor, and 
riding on an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass ! 

“Now when they heard this, all wept bitterly and rent 
their clothes. And the most righteous hastened to the Queen. 
She was the Queen Helena, wife of King Jannzus, and she 


1 Nob was a city of Benjamin, situated on a height near Jerusalem, on 
one of the roads which led from the north to the capital, and within sight 
of it, as is certain from the description of the approach of the Assyrian 
army in Isaiah (x. 28—382). 


THE FIRST TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 81 


reigned after her husband’s death. She was also called 
Oleina, and had a son, King Mumbasus, otherwise called 
Hyrcanus, who was slain by his servant Herod.! 

“ And they said to her, He stirreth up the people; there- 
fore is he guilty of the heaviest penalty. Give unto us full 
power, and we will take him by subtlety. 

“Then the Queen said, Call him hither before me, and I 
will hear his accusation. But she thought to save him out 
of their hands because he was related to her. But when the 
elders saw her purpose, they said to her, Think not to do 
this, Lady and Queen! and show him favour and good; for 
by his witchcraft he deceives the people. And they related 
to her how he had obtained the incommunicable Name. . . . 

“Then the Queen answered, In this will I consent unto 
you; bring him hither that I may hear what he saith, and 
see with my eyes what he doth; for the whole world speaks 
of the countless miracles that he has wrought. 

“And the wise men answered, This will we do as thou 
hast said. So they sent and summoned Jeschu, and he came 
and stood before the Queen.” 


In the sight of Queen Helena, Jeschu then healed a 
leper and raised a dead man to life. 


“Then Jeschu said, Of me did Isaiah prophesy: The 
lame shall leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall 
sing. 

«50 the Queen turned to the wise men and said, How say 
ye that this man is a magician? Have I not seen with my 
eyes the wonders he has wrought as being the Son of God ? 

“But the wise men answered and said, Let it not come 
into the heart of the Queen to say so; for of a truth he is a 
wizard. 

“ Then the Queen said, Away with you, and bring no such 
accusations again before me! 


1 Herod put Alexander Hyrcanus to death B.C. 30. Alexandra, the 
mother of Hyrcanus, reigned after the death of Jannzus, from B.C. 79 to 
Bde: ΤΙ: 


BS 


82 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 


“Therefore the wise men went forth with sad hearts, and 
one turned to another and said, Let us use subtlety, that we 
may get him into our hands. And one said to another, If it 
seems right unto you, let one of us learn the Name, as he did, 
and work miracles, and perchance thus we shall secure him. 
And this counsel pleased the elders, and they said, He who 
will learn the Name and secure the Fatherless One shall receive 
a double reward in the future life. 

“And thereupon one of the elders stood up, whose name 
was Judas, and spake unto them, saying, Are ye agreed to 
take upon you the blame of such an action, if I speak the 
incommunicable Name? for if so, I will learn it, and it may 
happen that God in His mercy may bring the Fatherless One 
into my power. 

“Then all cried out with one voice, The guilt be on us; 
but do thou make the effort and succeed. 

“Thereupon he went into the Holiest Place, and did what 
deschu had done. And after that he went through the city 
and raised a cry, Where are those who have proclaimed 
abroad that the Fatherless is the Son of God? Cannot I, 
who am mere flesh and blood, do all that Jeschu has done? 

“‘ And when this came to the ears of the Queen, Judas was 
brought before her, and all the elders assembled and followed 
him. Then the Queen summoned Jeschu, and said to him, 
Show us what thou hast done last. And he began to work 
miracles before all the people. 

“ Thereat Judas spake to the Queen and to all the people, 
saying, Let nothing that has been wrought by the Fatherless 
make you wonder, for were he to set his nest between the 
stars, yet would I pluck him down from thence ! 

“Then said Judas, Moses our teacher said: , 

“Tf thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy 
‘daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is 
as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and. 
serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy 
fathers ; 

“Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about 


THE FIRST TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 83 
RRM Sah Cs ττὖὁ Ὅὁἐ του οὐ του στον 
you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of 
the earth even unto the other end of the earth ; 

“ Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him ; 
neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, 
neither shalt thou conceal him : 

“ But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first 
upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of 
all the people. 

« And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; be- 
cause he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy 
God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the 
house of bondage. 

“ But the Fatherless One answered, Did not Isaias pro- 
phesy of me? And my father David, did he not speak of 
me? The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day 
have I begotten thee. Desire of me, and I will give thee 
the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost part of 
the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt rule them with a 
rod of iron, and break them in pieces like a potter's vessel. 
And in like manner he speaks in another place, The Lord said 
unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine 
enemies my footstool! And now, behold! I will ascend to 
my Heavenly Father, and will sit me down at His right hand. 
Ye shall see it with your eyes, but thou, Judas, shalt not 
prevail ! 

« And when Jeschu had spoken the incommunicable Name, 
there came a wind and raised him between heaven and earth. 
Thereupon Judas spake the same Name, and the wind raised 
him also between heaven and earth. And they flew, both of 
them, around in the regions of the air; and all who saw it 
marvelled. 

“ Judas then spake again the Name, and seized Jeschu, and 
thought to cast him to the earth. But Jeschu also spake the 
Name, and sought to cast Judas down, and they strove one 
with the other.” 


Finally Judas prevails, and casts Jeschu to the ground, 
and the elders seize him, his power leaves him, and he 


84 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 


is subjected to the tauntings of his captors. Then sen- 
tence of death was spoken against him. 


“But when Jeschu found his power gone, he cried and 
said, Of me did my father David speak, For thy sake are we 
killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the 
slaughter. 

““ Now when the disciples of Jeschu saw this, and all the 
multitude of sinners who had followed him, they fought 
against the elders and wise men of Jerusalem, and gave Jeschu 
opportunity to escape out of the city. 

“And he hasted to Jordan; and when he had washe 
therein his power returned, and with the Name he again 
wrought his former miracles. 

“Thereafter he went and took two millstones, and made 
them swim on the water; and he seated himself thereon, and 
caught fishes to feed the multitudes that followed him.” 


Before going any further, it is advisable to make a 
few remarks on what has been given of this curious 
story. 

The Queen Helena is probably the mother of Constan- 
tine, who went to Jerusalem in A.D. 326 to see the holy 
sites, and, according to an early legend, discovered the 
three crosses on Calvary. There are several incidents 
in the apocryphal story which bear a resemblance to 
the incidents in the Toledoth Jeschu. 

The Empress Helena favours the Christians against 
the Jews. Where three crosses are found, a person suf- 
fering from “a grievous and incurable disease” is applied 
to the crosses, and recovers on touching the true one. 
Then the same experiment is tried with a dead body, 
with the same success.1 According to the Apocryphal 
Acts of St. Cyriacus, a Jew named Judas was brought 
before the Empress, and ordered to point out where the 


1 Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. ii. 1. 


THE FIRST TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 85 


cross was buried. Judas resisted, but was starved in a 
well till he revealed the secret. The resemblance between 
the stories consists in the names of Helena and Judas, 
and the miracles of healing a leper, and raising a dead 
man. to life. 

According to the Apocryphal Acts of St. Cyriacus, 
Judas was the grandson of Zacharias, and nephew of 
St. Stephen the protomartyr.1 

It is remarkable that Jeschu should be made to quote 
two passages in the Psalms as prophecies of himself, 
both of which are used in this manner in the New Tes- 
tament: Ps. 11. 7, in Acts xii. 33, and again Heb. i. 5, 
and v. 5; and Ps. ex. 1, in St. Matthew xxii. 44, and 
the corresponding passages in St. Mark and St. Luke ; 
also in Acts 11. 34, in 1 Cor. xv. 25, and Heb. i. 13. 

The scene of the struggle in the air is taken from the 
contest of St. Peter with Simon Maeus, and reminds 
one of the contest in the Arabian Nights between the 
Queen of Beauty and the Jin in the story of the Second 
Calender. 

The putting forth from land on a millstone on the 
occasion of the miraculous draught of fishes is probably 
a perversion of the incident of Jesus entering into the 
boat of Peter—the stone—before the miracle was per- 
formed, according to St. Luke, v. 1—8. In the Toledoth 
Jeschu there are two millstones which our Lord sets 
afloat, and he mounts one, and then the fishes are 
caught ; in St. Luke’s Gospel there are two boats. 

“He saw two ships standing by the lake. ... . And he 
entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and prayed 
him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he 
sat down and taught the people out of the ship. Now when 
he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into 
the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.” 


1 Acta Sanct. Mai. Τὶ, I. pp. 445—451. 


86 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 


It was standing on the swimming-stone, according to 
the Huldrich version, that Jeschu preached to the people, 
and declared to them his divine mission. 

The story goes on. The Sanhedrim, fearing to allow 
Jeschu to remain at liberty, send Judas after him to 
Jordan. Judas pronounces a great incantation, which 
obliges the Angel of Sleep to seal the eyes of Jeschu and 
his disciples. Then, whilst they sleep, he comes and 
cuts from the arm of Jeschu a scrap of parchment on 
which the Name of Jehovah is written, and which was 
concealed under the flesh. Jeschu awakes, and a spirit 
appears to him and vexes him sore. Then he feels that 
his power is gone, and he announces to his disciples 
that his hour is come when he must be taken by his 
enemies. 

The disciples, amongst whom is Judas, who, unob- 
served, has mingled with them, are sorely grieved; but 
Jeschu encourages them, and bids them believe in him, 
and they will obtain thrones in heaven. Then he goes 
with them to the Paschal Feast, in hopes of again being 
able to penetrate into the Holy of Holies, and reading 
again the incommunicable Name, and of thus recovering 
his power. But Judas forewarns the elders, and as Jeschu 
enters the Temple he is attacked by armed men. The 
Jewish servants do not know Jeschu from his disciples. 
Accordingly Judas flings himself down before him, and 
thus indicates whom they are to take. Some of the dis- 
ciples offer resistance, but are speedily overcome, and 
take to flight to the mountains, where they are caught 
and executed. 

“ But the elders of Jerusalem led Jeschu in chains into the 
city, and bound him to a marble pillar, and scourged him, 
and said, Where are now all the miracles thou hast wrought? 
And they plaited a crown of thorns and set it on his head. 
Then the Fatherless was in anguish through thirst, and he 


rs π᾿ 


THE FIRST TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 87 





cried, saying, Give me water to drink! So they gave him 
acid vinegar; and after he had drunk thereof he cried, Of 
me did my father David prophesy, They gave me gall to 
eat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. But 
they answered, If thou wert God, why didst thou not know 
it was vinegar before tasting of it? Now thou art at the 
brink of the grave, and changest not. But Jeschu wept and 
said, My God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me? And 
the elders said, If thou be God, save thyself from our hands. 
But Jeschu answered, saying, My blood is shed for the re- 
demption of the world, for Isaiah prophesied of me, He was 
wounded for our transgression and bruised for our iniquities ; 
our chastisement lies upon him that we may have peace, and 
by his wounds we are healed.? Then they led Jeschu forth 
before the greater and the lesser Sanhedrim, and he was sen- 
tenced to be stoned, and then to be hung ona tree. And it 
was the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. And they 
led him forth to the place where the punishment of stoning 
was wont to be executed, and they stoned him there till he 
was dead. And after that, the wise men hung him on the 
tree; but no tree would bear him; each brake and yielded. 
And when even was come the wise men said, We may not, 
on account of the Fatherless, break the letter of the law 
(which forbids that one who is hung should remain all night 
on the tree). Though he may have set at naught the law, 
yet will not we. Therefore they buried the Fatherless in the 
place where he was stoned. And when midnight was come, 
the disciples came and seated themselves on the grave, and 
wept and lamented him. Now when Judas saw this, he took 
the body away and buried it in his garden under a brook. 
He diverted the water of the brook elsewhere; but when the 
body was laid in its bed, he brought its waters back again 
into their former channel. 

“Now on the morrow, when the disciples had assembled 
and had seated themselves weeping, Judas came to them and 
said, Why weep you? Seek him who was buried. And 


1) Ps, berx. 22. 2 Isa. lili. 5. 


88 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 


they dug and sought, and found him not, and all the company 
cried, He is not in the grave; he is risen and ascended into 
heaven, for, when he was yet alive, he said, He would raise | 
him up, Selah !” 


When the Queen heard that the elders had slain 
Jeschu and had buried him, and that he was risen 
again, she ordered them within three days to produce 
the body or forfeit their lives. In sore alarm, the elders 
seek the body, but cannot find it. They therefore pro- 
claim a fast. 


“ Now there was amongst them an elder whose name was 
Tanchuma; and he went forth in sore distress, and wandered 
in the fields, and he saw Judas sitting in his garden eating. 
Then Tanchuma drew near to him, and said to him, What 
᾿ doest thou, Judas, that thou eatest meat, when all the Jews 
fast and are in grievous distress ? 

“Then Judas was astonished, and asked the occasion of 
the fast. And the Rabbi Tanchuma answered him, Jeschu 
the Fatherless is the occasion, for he was hung up and buried 
on the spot where he was stoned ; but now is he taken away, 
and we know not where he is gone. And his worthless dis- 
ciples cry out that he is ascended into heaven. Now the 
Queen has condemned us Israelites to death unless we find 
hin. 

“ Judas asked, And if the Fatherless One were found, 
would it be the salvation of Israel? The Rabbi Tanchuma 
answered that it would be even so. 

“Then spake Judas, Come, and I will show you the man 
whom ye seek; for it was 1 who took the Fatherless from 
his grave. For I feared lest his disciples should steal him 
away, and I have hidden him in my garden and led a water- 
brook over the place. 

“Then the Rabbi Tanchuma hasted to the elders of Israel, 
and told them all. And they came together, and drew him 
forth, attached to the tail of a horse, and brought him before 


THE FIRST TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 89 


the Queen, and said, See! this is the man who, they say, has 
ascended into heaven ! 

“ Now when the Queen saw this, she was filled with shame, 
and answered not a word. 

“ Now it fell out, that in dragging the body to the place, 
the hair was torn off the head ; and this is the reason why 
monks shave their heads. It is done in remembrance of what 
befel Jeschu. 

“ And after this, in consequence thereof, there grew to be 
strife between the Nazarenes and the Jews, so that they parted 
asunder; and when a Nazarene saw a Jew he slew him. And 
from day to day the distress grew greater, during thirty years. 
And the Nazarenes assembled in thousands and tens of thou- 
sands, and hindered the Israelites from going up to the festi- 
vals at Jerusalem. And then there was great distress, such 
as when the golden calf was set up, so that they knew not 
what to do. 

“And the belief of the opposition grew more and more, 
and spread on all sides. Also twelve godless runagates sepa- 
rated and traversed the twelve realms, and everywhere in the 
assemblies of the people uttered false prophecies. 

“‘ Also many Israelites adhered to them, and these were 
men of high renown, and they strengthened the faith in 
Jeschu. And because they gave themselves out to be mes- 
sengers of him who was hung, a great number followed them 
from among the Israelites. 

“Now when the wise men saw the desperate condition of 
affairs, one said to another, Woe is unto us! for we have de- 
served it through our sins. And they sat in great distress, 
and wept, and looked up to heaven and prayed. 

“And when they had ended their prayer, there rose up a 
very aged man of the elders, by name Simon Cephas, who 
understood prophecy, and he said to the others, Hearken to 
me, my brethren! and if ye will consent unto my advice, I 
will separate these wicked ones from the company of the 
Israelites, that they may have neither part nor lot with Israel. 
But the sin do ye take upon you. 


90 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 


“Then answered they all and said, The sin be on us; de- 
clare unto us thy counsel, and fulfil thy purpose. 

“Therefore Simon, son of Cephas, went into the Holiest 
Place and wrote the incommunicable Name, and cut into his 
flesh and hid the parchment therein. And when he came 
forth out of the Temple he took forth the writing, and when 
he had learned the Name he betook himself to the chief city 
of the Nazarenes,! and he cried there with a loud voice, Let 
all who believe in Jeschu come unto me, for I am sent by 
him to you! 

“Then there came to him multitudes as the sand on the 
sea-shore, and they said to him, Show us a sign that thou art 
sent! And he said, What sign? They answered him, Even 
the signs that Jeschu wrought when he was alive.” 


Accordingly he heals a leper and restores a dead man 
to life. And when the people saw this, they submitted 
to him, as one sent to them by Jeschu. 


“Then said Simon Cephas to them, Yea, verily, Jeschu did 
send me to you, and now swear unto me that ye will obey 
me in all things that I command you. 

“‘ And they swore to him, We will do all things that thou 
commandest. 

“Then Simon Cephas said, Ye know that he who hung on 
the tree was an enemy to the Israelites and the Law, because 
of the prophecy of Isaiah, Your new moons and festivals my 
soul hateth.2 And that he had no pleasure in the Israelites, 
according to the saying of Hosea, Ye are not my people.? 
Now, although it is in his power to blot them in the twink- 
ling of an eye from off the face of the earth, yet will he not 
root them out, but will keep them ever in the midst of you 
as a witness to his stoning and hanging on the tree. He en- 
dured these paims and the punishment of death, to redeem 
your souls from hell. And now he warns and commands you 


1 Rome. Simon Cephas is Simon Peter, but the miraculous power 
attributed to him perhaps belongs to the story of Simon Magus. 


2 Tsa. i, 14. 3 Hosea i. 9, 


THE FIRST TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 91 


to do no harm to any Jew. Yea, even should a Jew say to a 
Nazarene, Go with me a mile, he shall go with him twain ; or 
should a Nazarene be smitten by a Jew on one cheek, let him 
turn to him the other also, that the Jews may enjoy in this 
world their good things, for in the world to come they must 
suffer their punishment in hell. If ye do these things, then 
shall ye merit to sit with them (i.e. the apostles) on their 
thrones. 

“ And this also doth he require of you, that ye do not 
celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but that ye keep 
holy the day on which he died. And in place of the Feast 
of Pentecost, that ye keep the fortieth day after his stoning, 
on which he went up into heaven. And in place of the 
Feast of Tabernacles, that ye keep the day of his Nativity, 
and eight days after that ye shall celebrate his Circumcision.” 


The Christians promised to do as Cephas commanded 
them, but they desired him to reside in the midst of 
them in their great city. 

To this he consented. “1 will dwell with you,” said 
he, “if ye will promise to permit me to abstain from 
all food, and to eat only the bread of poverty and drink 
the water of affliction. Ye must also build me a tower 
in the midst of the city, wherein I may spend the rest 
of my days.” 

This was done. The tower was built and called 
“ Peter,’ and in this Cephas dwelt till his death six years 
after. “In truth, he served the God of our fathers, 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and composed many beautiful 
᾿ς hymns, which he dispersed among the Jews, that they 
might serve as a perpetual memorial of him; and he 
divided all his hymns among the Rabbis of Israel.” 

On his death he was buried in the tower. 

After his death, a man named Ehas assumed the place 
of messenger of Jeschu, and he declared that Simon 


1 Matt. xix. 28. 


99 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 





Cephas had deceived the Christians, and that he, Elias, 
was an apostle of Jeschu, rather than Cephas, and that 
the Christians should follow him. The Christians asked 
for a sign. 

Elias said, “What sign do ye ask?” Then a stone 
fell from the tower Peter, and smote him that he died. 
“Thus,” concludes this first version of the Toledoth 
Jeschu, “may all Thine enemies perish, O Lord; but 
may those that love Thee be as the sun when it shineth 
in its strength !” 

Thus nis this wonderful composition, which carries 
its own condemnation with it. 

The two captures and sentences of Jeschu are appa- 
rently two forms of Jewish legend concerning Christ's 
death, which the anonymous writer has clumsily com- 
bined. 

The scene in Gethsemane is laid on the other side of 
Jordan. It is manifestly imitated from the Gospels, but 
not directly, probably from some medieval sculptured 
representation of the Agony in the Garden, common 
outside every large church In place of an angel ap- 
pearing to comfort Christ, an evil spirit vexes him. The 
kiss of Judas is transformed into a genuflexion or pros- 
tration before him, and takes place, not in the Garden, 
but in the Temple. The resistance of the disciples is 
mentioned. Jeschu is bound to a marble pillar and 
scourged. Of this the Gospels say nothing; but the 
pillar is an invariable feature in artistic representations 
of the scourging. Two of the sayings on the Cross are 
correctly given. In agreement with the account in the 


1 The Oelberg was especially characteristic of German churches, and 
was erected chiefly in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. They remain 
at Niirnberg, Xanten, Worms, Marburg, Donauwérth, Landshut, Was- 
serburg, Ratisbon, Klosterneuburg, Wittenberg, Merseburg, Lucerne, 
Bruges, &c. 


THE FIRST TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 93 


Talmud, Jeschu is stoned, and then, to identify the son 
of Panthera with the son of Mary, is hung on a tree. 
The tree breaks, and he falls to the ground. The visitor 
to Ober Ammergau Passion Play will remember the 
scene of Judas hanging himself, and the tree snapping. 
The Toledoth Jeschu does not say that Jeschu was cru- 
eified, but that he was hung. The suicide of Judas was 
identified with the death of Jesus. If the author of the 
anti-evangel saw the scene of the breaking bough in 
a miracle-play, he would perhaps naturally transfer it 
to Christ. 

The women seated late at night by the sepulchre, or 
coming early with spices, a feature in miracle-plays of 
the Passion, are transformed into the disciples weeping 
above the grave. The angel who addresses them, in the 
Toledoth Jeschu, becomes Judas. 

In miracle-plays, Claudia Procula, the wife of Pilate, 
assumes a prominence she does not occupy in the Gos- 
pels; she may have originated the idea in the mind 
of the author of Wagenseil’s Toledoth, of the Queen 
Helena. That he confounded the Queen of King Jan- 
neeus with the mother of Constantine is not wonderful. 
The latter was the only historical princess who showed 
sympathy with the Christians at Jerusalem, and of 
whose existence the anonymous author was aware, pro- 
bably through the popular medizeval romance of Helena, 
“La belle Heléne.” He therefore fell without a struggle 
into the gross anachronism of making the Empress 
Helena the wife of Janneeus, and contemporary with 
Christ. 

In the Toledoth Jeschu of Wagenseil, Simon Peter is 
represented as a Jew ruling the Christians in favour of 
the Jews. The Papacy must have been fully organized 
when this ‘anti-evangel was written, and the Jews must 
have felt the protection accorded them by the Popes 


94 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 


against their persecutors. St. Gregory the Great wrote 
letters, in 591 and 598, in behalf of the Jews who were 
maltreated in Italy and Sicily. Alexander IL, in 1068, 
wrote a letter to the Bishops of Gaul exhorting them to 
protect the Jews against the violence of the Crusaders, 
who massacred them on their way to the East. He 
gave as his reason for their protection the very one put 
into Simon Cephas’ mouth in the Toledoth Jeschu, that 
God had preserved them and scattered them in all 
countries as witnesses to the truth of the Gospel. In the 
cruel confiscation of their goods, and expulsion from 
France by Philip Augustus, and the simultaneous perse- 
cution they underwent in England, Innocent III. took 
their side, and insisted, in 1199, on their being protected 
from violence. Gregory IX. defended them when mal- 
treated in Spain and in France by the Crusaders in 1236, 
on their appeal to him for protection. In 1246, the Jews 
of Germany appealed to the Pope, Innocent IV., against 
the ecclesiastical and secular princes who pillaged them 
on false charges. Innocent wrote, in 1247, ordering 
those who had wronged them to indemnify them for 
their losses. 

In 1417, the Jews of Constance came to meet Mar- 
tin V., as their protector, on his coronation, with hymns 
and torches, and presented him with the Pentateuch, 
which he had the discourtesy to refuse, saying that they 
might have the Law, but they did not understand it. 

The claim made in the Toledoth Jeschu that the 
Papacy was a government in the interest of the Jews 
against the violence of the Christians, points to the thir- 
teenth century as the date of the composition of this 
book, a century when the Jews suffered more from 
Christian brutality than at any other period, when 
their exasperation against everything Christian was 
wrought to its highest pitch, and when they found the 


THE FIRST TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 95 





Chair of Peter their only protection against extermina- 
tion by the disciples of Christ. 

Some dim reference may be made to the anti-pope of 
Jewish blood, Peter Leonis, who took the name of Ana- 
cletus II., and who survives in modern Jewish legend 
as the Pope Elchanan. Anacletus IL. (A.D. 1130— 
1138) maintained his authority in Rome against Inno- 
cent II., and trom his refuge in the tower of St. Angelo 
defied the Emperor Lothair, who had marched to*Rome 
to install Innocent. Anacletus was accused of show- 
ing favour to the Jews, whose blood he inherited—his 
father was a Jewish usurer. When Christians shrank 
from robbing the churches of their silver and golden 
ornaments, required by Anacletus to pay his mercenaries 
and bribe the venal Romans, he is said to have en- 
trusted the odious task to the Jews. 

Jewish legend has converted the Jewish anti-pope 
into the son of the Rabbi Simeon Ben Isaac, of Mainz, 
who died A.D. 1096. According to the story, the child 
Elchanan was stolen from his father and mother by a 
Christian nurse, was taken charge of by monks, grew 
up to be ordained priest, and finally was elected Pope. 

As a child he had been wont to play chess with his 
father, and had learned from him a favourite move 
whereby to check-mate his adversary. 

The Jews of Germany suffered from oppression, and 
appointed the Rabbi Simeon to bear their complaints to 
the Pope. The old Jew went to Rome and was intro- 
duced to the presence of the Holy Father. Elchanan 
recognized him at once, and sent forth all his attendants, 
then proposed a game of chess with the Rabbi. When 
the Pope played the favourite move of the old Jew, 
Simeon Ben Isaac sprang up, smote his brow, and cried 
out, “I thought none knew this move save I and my 
long-lost child.” “I am that child,” answered the 


96 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 





Pope, and he flung himself into the arms of the aged 
Jew." 

That the Wagenseil Toledoth Jeschu was written in the 
eleventh, twelfth or thirteenth century appears probable 
from the fact stated, that it was in these centuries that the 
Jews were more subjected to persecution, spoliation and 
massacre than in any other; and the Toledoth Jeschu is 
the cry of rage of a tortured people,—a curse hurled at 
the Founder of that religion which oppressed them. 

Tn the eleventh century the Jews in the great Rhine 
cities were massacred by the ferocious hosts of Cru- 
saders under Ernico, Count of Leiningen, and the priests 
Folkmar and Goteschalk. At the voice of their leaders 
(A.D. 1096), the furious multitude of red-crossed pil- 
grims spread through the cities of the Rhine and the 
Moselle, massacring pitilessly all the Jews that they 
met with in their passage. In their despair, a great 
number preferred being their own destroyers to awaiting 
certain death at the hands of their enemies. Several 
shut themselves up in their houses, and perished amidst 
flames their own hands had kindled; some attached 
heavy stones to their garments, and precipitated them- 
selves and their treasures into the Rhine or Moselle. 
Mothers stifled their children at the breast, saying that 
they preferred sending them to the bosom of Abraham 
to seeing them torn away to be nurtured in a religion 
which bred tigers. 

Some of the ecclesiastics behaved with Christian 
humanity. The Bishops of Worms and Spires ran some 
risk in saving as many as they could of this defenceless 
people. The Archbishop of Treves, less generous, gave 
refuge to such only as would consent to receive baptism, 
and coldly consigned the rest to the knives and halters 


1 Mase, c. 188. I have told the story more fully in the Christmas 
Number of ‘‘ Once a Week,” 1868. 


THE FIRST TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 97 


of the Christian fanatics. The Archbishop of Mainz 
was more than suspected of participation in the plunder 
of his Jewish subjects. The Emperor took on himself 
the protection and redress of the wrongs endured by the 
Jews, and it was apparently at this time that the Jews 
were formally taken under feudal protection by the 
Emperor. They became his men, owing to him special 
allegiance, and with full right therefore to his protec- 
tion. 

The Toledoth Jeschu of Wagenseil was composed by 
a German Jew; that is apparent from its mention of 
the letter of the synagogue of Worms to the Sanhedrim. 
Had it been written in the eleventh century, it would 
not have represented the Pope as the refuge of the per- 
secuted Jews, for it was the Emperor who redressed 
their wrongs. 

But it was in the thirteenth century that the Popes 
stood forth as the special protectors of the Jews. On 
May 1, 1291, the Jewish bankers throughout France 
were seized and imprisoned by order of Philip the Fair, 
and forced to pay enormous mulcts. Some died under 
torture, most yielded, and then fled the inhospitable 
realm. Five years after, in one day, all the Jews in 
France were taken, their property confiscated to the 
Crown, the race expelled the realm. 

In 1320, the Jews of the South of France, notwith- 
standing persecution and expulsion, were again in num- 
bers and perilous prosperity. On them burst the fury 
of the Pastoureaux. Five hundred took refuge in the 
royal castle of Verdun on the Garonne. The royal 
officers refused to defend them. The shepherds set fire 
to the lower stories of a lofty tower; the Jews slew 
each other, having thrown their children to the mercy of 
their assailants. Everywhere, even in the great cities, 
Auch, Toulouse, Castel Sarrazen, the Jews were left to 

Ε 


98 * JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 


be remorselessly massacred and their property pillaged. 
The Pope himself might have seen the smoke of the 
fires that consumed them darkening the horizon from 
the walls of Avignon. But John XXIL, cold, arrogant, 
rapacious, stood by unmoved. He launched his excom- 
munication, not against the murderers of the inoffensive 
Jews, but against all who presumed to take the Cross 
without warrant of the Holy See. Even that same year 
he published violent bulls against the poor persecuted 
Hebrews, and commanded the Bishops to destroy their 
Talmud, the source of their detestable blasphemies ; but 
he bade those who should submit to baptism to be pro- 
tected from pillage and massacre. 

The Toledoth Jeschu, therefore, cannot have been 
written at the beginning of the fourteenth century, 
when the Jews had such experience of the indifference 
of a Pope to their wrongs. We are consequently forced 
to look to the thirteenth century as its date. And the 
thirteenth century will provide us with instances of 
persecution of the Jews in Germany, and Popes exerting 
themselves to protect them. 

In 1236, the Jews were the subject of an outburst of 
popular fury throughout Europe, but especially in Spain, 
where a fearful carnage took place. In France, the 
Crusaders of Guienne, Poitou, Anjou and Brittany killed 
them, without sparing the women and children. Women 
with child were ripped up. The unfortunate Jews were 
thrown down, and trodden under the feet of horses. 
Their houses were ransacked, their books burned, their 
treasures carried off. Those who refused baptism were 
tortured or killed. The unhappy people sent to Rome, 
and implored the Pope to extend his protection to them. 
Gregory IX. wrote at once to the Archbishop of Bor- 
deaux, the Bishops of Saintes, Angouléme and Poictiers, 
forbidding constraint to be exercised on the Jews to 


THE FIRST TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 99 





force them to receive baptism ; and a letter to the King 
entreating him to exert his authority to repress the fury 
of the Crusaders against the Jews. 

In 1240, the Jews were expelled from Brittany by the 
Duke John, at the request of the Bishops of Brittany. 

In 1246, the persecution reached its height in Ger- 
many. Bishops and nobles vied with each other in de- 
spoiling and harassing the unfortunate Hebrews. They 
were charged with killing Christian children and de- 
vouring their hearts at their Passover. Whenever a 
dead body was found, the Jews were accused of the 
murder. Hosts were dabbled in blood, and thrown 
down at their doors, and the ignorant mob rose against 
such profanation of the sacred mysteries. They were 
stripped of their goods, thrown into prison, starved, 
racked, condemned to the stake or to the gallows. From 
the German towns miserable trains of yellow-girdled 
and capped exiles issued, seeking some more hospitable 
homes. If they left behind them their wealth, they 
carried with them their industry. 

A deputation of German Rabbis visited the Pope, 
Innocent IV., at Lyons, and laid the complaints of the 
Jews before him. Innocent at once took up their cause. 
He wrote to all the bishops of Germany, on July 5th, 
1247, ordering them to favour the Jews, and insist on 
the redress of the wrongs to which they had been sub- 
jected, whether at the hands of ecclesiastics or nobles. 
A similar letter was then forwarded by him to all the 
bishops of France. 

At this period it was in vain for the Jews to appeal 
to the Emperor. Frederick II. was excommunicated, 
and Germany in revolt, fanned by the Pope, against him. 
A new Emperor had been proposed at a meeting at Bud- 
weis to the electors of Austria, Bohemia and Bavaria, 
but the proposition had been rejected. Henry of Thu- 

F 2 


100 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 


ringia, however, set up by Innocent, and supported by 
the ecclesiastical princes of Germany, had been crowned 
at Hochem. A crusade was preached against the Em- 
peror Frederick ; Henry of Thuringia was defeated and 
died. The indefatigable Innocent, clinging to the 
cherished policy of the Papal See to ruin the unity of 
Germany by stirring up intestine strife, found another 
candidate in William of Holland. He was crowned at 
Aix-la-Chapelle, October 3, 1247. From this time till 
his death, four years after, the cause of Frederick de- 
clined. Frederick was mostly engaged in wars in Italy, 
and had not leisure, if he had the power, to attend to 
and right the wrongs of his Jewish vassals. 

It was at this period that I think we may conclude 
the Toledoth Jeschu of Wagenseil was written. 

Another consideration tends to confirm this view. 
The Wagenseil Toledoth Jeschu speaks of Klias rising 
up after the death of Simon Cephas, and denouncing 
him as having led the Christians away. 

Was there any Elias at the close of the thirteenth 
century who did thus preach against the Pope? There 
was. Elias of Cortona, second General of the Franciscan 
Order, the leader of a strong reactionary party opposed 
to the Spirituals or Ceesarians, those who maintained the 
rule in all its rigour, had been deposed, then carried back 
into the Generalship by a recoil of the party wave, then 
appealed against to the Pope, deposed once more, and 
finally excommunicated, Elias joined the Emperor 
Frederick, the deadly foe of Innocent IV., and, sheltered 
under his wing, denounced the venality, the avarice, the 
extortion of the Papacy. As a close attendant on the 
German Emperor, his adviser, as one who encouraged 
him in his opposition to a Pope who protected the Jews, 
the German Jews must have heard of him. But the 
stone of excommunication flung at him struck him 


THE FIRST TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 101 





down, and he died in 1253, making a death-bed recon- 
ciliation with Rome. 

But though it is thus possible to give an historical ex- 
planation of the curious circumstance that the Toledoth 
Jeschu ranges the Pope among the friends of Judaism 
and the enemies of Christianity, and provide for the 
identification of Elias with the fallen General of the 
Minorites,—the story points perhaps to a dim recollec- 
tion of Simon Peter being at the head of the Judaizing 
Church at Jerusalem and Rome, which made common 
cause with the Jews, and of Paul, here designated Khas, 
in opposition to him. 


ἯΙ. 
THE SECOND TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 


WE will now analyze and give extracts from the 
second anti-evangel of the Jews, the TOLEDOTH JESCHU 
or HuLpricu.! 

It begins thus: “In the reign of King Herod the 
Proselyte, there lived a man named Papus Ben Jehuda. 
To him was betrothed Mirjam, daughter of Kalphus; 
and her brother’s name was Simeon. He was a Rabbi, 
the son of Kalphus. This Mirjam, before her betrothal, 
was a hair-dresser to women... . . She was surpassing 
beautiful in form. She was of the tribe of Benjamin.” 

On account of her extraordinary beauty, she was kept 
locked up in a house; but she escaped through a win- 
dow, and fled from Jerusalem to Bethlehem with Joseph 
Pandira, of Nazareth. 

As has been already said, Papus Ben Jehuda was a 
contemporary of Rabbi Akiba, and died about A.D. 140. 
In the Wagenseil Toledoth Jeschu, Mirjam is betrothed 
to a Jochanan. In the latter, Mary lives at Bethlehem ; 
in the Toledoth of Huldrich, she resides at Jerusalem. 

Many years after, the place of the retreat of Mirjam 
and Joseph Pandira having been made known to Herod, 
he sent to Bethlehem orders for their arrest, and for 
the massacre of the children; but Joseph, who had been 
forewarned by a kinsman in the court of Herod, fled 
in time with his wife and children into Egypt. 


1 Joh. Jac. Huldricus : Historia Jeschuze Nazareni, a Judxis blaspheme 
corrupta ; Leyden, 1705. 


Π 


THE SECOND TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 103 


After many years a famine broke out in Egypt, and 
Joseph and Mirjam, with their son Jeschu and his 
brethren, returned to Canaan and settled at Nazareth. 


*« And Jeschu grew up, and went to Jerusalem to ‘acquire 
knowledge, in the school of Joshua, the son of Perachia 
(B.C. 90); and he made there great advance, so that he 
learned the mystery of the chariot and the holy Name. 

* One day it fell out that Jeschu was playing ball with the 
sons of the priests, near the chamber Gasith, on the hill of 
the Temple. Then by accident the ball fell into the Fish- 
valley. And Jeschu was very grieved, and in his anger he 
plucked the hat from off his head, and cast it on the ground 
and burst into lamentations. Thereupon the boys warned 
him to put his hat on again, for it was not comely to be with 
uncovered head. Jeschu answered, Verily, Moses gave you 
not this law; it is but an addition of the lawyers, and there- 
fore need not be observed. 

“Now there sat there, Rabbi Eliezer and Joshua Ben 
Levi (A.D. 220), and the Rabbi Akiba (A.D. 135) hard by, 
in the school, and they heard the words that Jeschu had 
spoken. 

“Then said the Rabbi Eliezer, That boy is certainly a 
Mamser. But Rabbi Joshua, son of Levi, said, He is a Ben- 
hannidda. And the Rabbi Akiba said also, He is a Ben- 
hannidda.? Therefore the Rabbi Akiba went forth out of the 
school, and asked Jeschu in what city he was born. Jeschu 
answered, 1 am of Nazareth; my father’s name is Mezaria,? 
and my mother’s name is εν οί 

“Then the Rabbis Akiba, Eliezer and Joshua went into 
the school of the Rabbi Joshua, son of Perachia, and seized 
Jeschu by the hair and cut it off in a circle, and washed his 

1 The mystery of the chariot is that of the chariot of God and the cherubic 


beasts, Ezekiel i. The Jews wrote the name of God without vowels, Jhvh; 
the vowel points taken from the name Adonai (Lord) were added later. 


2 The story is somewhat different in the Talmudic tract Calla, as already 
related. 


° From Mizraim, Egypt. 


104 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 


head with the water Boleth, so that the hair might not grow 
again.” 


Ashamed at this humiliation, according to the Tole- 
doth Jeschu of Huldrich, the boy returned to Nazareth, 
where he wounded his mother’s breast. 

Probably the author of this counter-Gospel saw one 
of those common artistic representations of the Mater 
Dolorosa with a sword piercing her soul, and invented 
the story of Jesus wounding his mother’s breast to 
account for it. 

When Jeschu was grown up, there assembled about 
him many disciples, whose names were Simon and 
Matthias, Elikus, Mardochai and Thoda, whose names 
Jeschu changed. 


“He called Simon Peter, after the word Petrus, which in 
Hebrew signifies the First. And Matthias he called Matthew; 
and Elikus he called Luke, because he sent him forth among 
the heathen; and Mardochai he named Mark, because he 
said, Vain men come to me; and Thoda he named Pahul 
(Paul), because he bore witness of him. 

“ Another worthless fellow also jomed them, named Jo- 
chanan, and he changed his name to Jahannus on account of 
the miracles Jeschu wrought through him by means of the 
incommunicable Name. This Jahannus advised that all the 
men who were together should have their heads washed with 
the water Boleth, that the hair might not grow on them, and 
all the world might know that they were Nazarenes. 

‘“ But the affair was known to the elders and to the King. 
Then he sent his messengers to take Jeschu and his disciples, 
and to bring them to Jerusalem. But out of fear of the people, 
they gave timely warning to Jeschu that the King sought to 
take and kill him and his companions. Therefore they fled 
into the desert of Ai (Capernaum?), And when the servants 
of the King came and found them not, with the exception of 
Jahannus, they took him and led him before the King. And 


THE SECOND TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 105 





the King ordered that Jahannus should be executed with the 
sword. The servants of the King therefore went at his com- 
mand and slew Jahannus, and hung up his head at the gate 
of Jerusalem.1 

«“ About this time Jeschu assembled the inhabitants of 
Jerusalem about him, and wrought many miracles. He laid 
a millstone on the sea, and sailed about on it, and cried, I am 
God, the Son of God, born of my mother by the power of 
the Holy Ghost, and I sprang from her virginal brow. 

“ And he wrought many miracles, so that all the mhabi- 
tants of Ai believed in him, and his miracles he wrought by 
means of the incommunicable Name. 

“Then Jeschu ordered the law to be done away with, for 
it is said in the Psalm, It is time for thee, Lord, to lay too 
thine hand, for they have destroyed thy law. Now, said he, 
is the right time come to tear up the law, for the thousandth 
generation has come since David said, He hath promised to 
keep his word to a thousand generations (Ps. cviii. 8). 

“‘ Therefore they arose and desecrated the Sabbath. 

« When now the elders and wise men heard of what was 
done, they came to the King and consulted him and his 
council. Then answered Judas, son of Zachar,? I am the first 
of the King’s princes; I will go myself and see if it be true 
what is said, that this man blasphemeth. 

“ Therefore Judas went and put on other clothes like the » 
men of Ai, and spake to Jeschu and said, 1 also will learn 
your doctrine. Then Jeschu had his head shaved in a ring 
and washed with the water Boleth. 

' “ After that they went into the wilderness, for they feared 
the King lest he should take them if they tarried at Ai. 
And they lost their way ; and in the wilderness they lighted 
on a shepherd who lay on the ground. Then Jeschu asked 


1 Evidently the author confounds John the Baptist with John the 
Apostle. 

2 Judas Iscarioth. In St. John’s Gospel he is called the son of Simon 
(vi. 71, xiii. 2,26). Son of Zachar is a corruption of Iscarioth. The 
name Iscarioth is probably from Kerioth, his native village, in Judah. 


wa 


106 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 





him the right way, and how far it was to shelter. The shep- 
herd answered, The way lies straight before you; and he 
pointed it out with his foot. 

“They went a little further, and they found a shepherd 
maiden, and Jeschu asked her which way they must go. 
Then the maiden led them to a stone which served as a sign- 
post. And Peter said to Jeschu, Bless this maiden who has 
led us hither! And he blessed her, and wished for her that 
she might become the wife of the shepherd they had met on 
the road. 

“Then said Peter, Wherefore didst thou so bless the 
maiden? He answered, The man is slow, but she is lively. 
If he were left without her activity, it would fare ill with 
him. For I ama God of mercy, and make marriages as is 
best for man.” 


This is a German story. There are many such of 
Jesus and St. Peter to be found in all collections of 
German household tales. They go together on a journey, 
and various adventures befal them, and the Lord orders 
things very differently from what Peter expects. To 
this follows another story, familiar to English school- 
boys. The apostles come with their Master to an inn; 
and ask for food. The innkeeper has a goose, and it is 
decided that he shall have the goose who dreams the 
best dream that night. When all are asleep, Judas 
gets up, plucks, roasts and eats the goose. Next morn- 
ing they tell their dreams. Judas says, “ Mine was the 
best of all, for I dreamt that in the night I ate the 
goose ; and, lo! the goose is gone this morning. I think 
the dream must have been a reality.” Among English 
school-boys, the story is told of an Englishman, and 
Scotchman, and an Irishman. The latter, of course, 
takes the place of Judas. 

Some equally ridiculous stories follow, inserted for 
the purpose of making our blessed Lord and his apostles 


THE SECOND TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 107 


contemptible, but not taken, like the two just mentioned, 
from German folk-lore. 


“ After that Judas went to Jerusalem, but Jeschu and 
Peter tarried awaiting him (at Laish), for they trusted him. 
Now when Judas was come to Jerusalem, he related to the 
King and the elders the words and deeds of Jeschu, and how, 
through the power of the incommunicable Name, he had 
wrought such wonders that the people of Ai believed in him, 
and how that he had taken to wife the daughter of Kar- 
kamus, chief ruler of Ai. 

“Then the King and the elders asked counsel of Judas 
how they might take Jeschu and his disciples. Judas an- 
swered, Persuade Jagar Ben Purah, their host, to mix the 
water of forgetfulness with their wine. We will come to 
Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles; and then do ye take 
him and his disciples. For Jager Purah is the brother of the 
Gerathite Karkamus ; but I will persuade Jeschu that Jager 
Purah is the brother of Karkamus of Ai, and he will believe 
my words, and they will all come up to the Feast of Taber- 
nacles. Now when they shall have drunk of that wine, then 
will Jeschu forget the incommunicable Name, and so will be 
unable to deliver himself out of your hands, so that ye can 
capture him and hold him fast. 
~ “Then answered the King and the elders, Thy counsel is 
good; go in peace, and we will appoint a fast. Therefore 
Judas went his way on the third of the month Tisri (Oc- 
tober), and the great assembly in Jerusalem fasted a great 
fast, and prayed God to deliver Jeschu and his followers into 
their hands. And they undertook for themselves and for 
their successors a fast to be held annually on the third of the 
month Tisri, for ever. 

‘“‘ When Judas had returned to Jeschu, he related to him, 
I have been attentive to hear what is spoken in Jerusalem, 
and none so much as wag their tongues against thee. Yea! 
when the King took Jahannus to slay him, his disciples came 
in force and rescued him. And Jahannus said to me, Go say 


108 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 





to Jesus, our Lord, that he come with his disciples, and 
we will protect him; and see! the host, Jager Purah, is 
brother of Karkamus, ruler of Ai, and an uncle of thy be- 
trothed. 

«ον when Jeschu heard the words of Judas, he believed 
them ; for the inhabitants of Jerusalem and their neighbours 
fasted incessantly during the six days between the feast of 
the New Year and the Day of Atonement,—yea, even on the 
Sabbath Day did some of them fast. And when those men 
who were not in the secret asked wherefore they fasted at 
this unusual time, when it was not customary to fast save on 
the Day of Atonement, the elders answered them, This is 
done because the King of the Gentiles has sent and threat- 
ened us with war. 

“ But Jeschu and his disciples dressed themselves in the 
costume of the men of Ai, that they might not be recognized 
in Jerusalem; and in the fast, on the Day of Atonement, 
Jeschu came with his disciples to Jerusalem, and entered into 
the house of Purah, and said, Of me it is written, Who is 
this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from 
Bozrah? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. 1 
have trodden the wine-press alone, and of the people there 
was none with me.! For now am I come from Edom to the 
house of Purah, and of thee, Purah, was it written, Jegar 
Sahadutha!? For thou shalt be to us a hill of witness and 
assured protection. But I have come here to Jerusalem to 
abolish the festivals and the holy seasons and the appointed 
holy days. And he that believeth in me shall have his 
portion in eternal life. I will give forth a new law in Jeru: 
salem, for of me was it written, Out of Zion shall the law 
go forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.? And 
their sins and unrighteousness will I atone for with my blood. 
But after I am dead I will arise to life again ; for it is written, 


1 Tsa. Ixiii. 1—8. Singularly enough, this passage is chosen for the 
Epistle in the Roman and Anglican Churches for Monday in Holy Week, 
with special reference to the Passion. 


2 Gen. xxxi. 47. 3 Tsa, ii. 3. 


THE SECOND TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 109 


I kill and make alive; I bring down to hell, and raise up 
therefrom again.+ 

“ But Judas betook himself secretly to the King, and told 
him how that Jeschu and his disciples were in the house of 
Purah. . Therefore the King sent young priests into the 
house of Purah, who said unto Jeschu, We are ignorant 
men, and believe in thee and thy word; but do this, we 
pray thee, work a miracle before our eyes. 

“Then Jeschu wrought before them wonders by means of 
the incommunicable Name. 

*¢ And on the great Day of Atonement he and his disciples 
ate and drank, and fasted not; and they drank of the wine 
wherewith was mingled the Water of Forgetfulness, and then 
betook themselves to rest. 

“ And when midnight was now come, behold! servants of 
the King surrounded the house, and to them Purah opened 
the door. And the servants broke into the room where Jeschu 
and his disciples were, and they cast them into chains. 

“Then Jeschu directed his mind to the incommunicable 
Name ; but he could not recall it, for all had vanished from 
his recollection. 

“And the servants of the King led Jeschu and his dis- 
ciples to the prison of the blasphemers. And in the morning 
they told the King that Jeschu and his disciples were taken 
and cast into prison. Then he ordered that they should be 
detained till the Feast of Tabernacles. 

«« And on that feast all the people of the Lord came toge- 
ther to the feast, as Moses had commanded them. Then the 
King ordered that Jeschu’s disciples should be stoned outside 
the city ; and all the Israelites looked on, and heaped stones 
on the disciples. And all Israel broke forth into hymns of 
praise to the God of Israel, that these men of Belial had thus 
fallen into their hands. 

* But Jeschu was kept still in prison, for the King would 
not slay him till the men of Ai had seen that his words were 
naught, and what sort of a prophet he was proved to be. 


1 1 Sam. ii. 6. 


110 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 


ἐς Also he wrote letters throughout the land to the councils 
of the synagogues to learn from them after what manner 
Jeschu should be put to death, and summoning all to assemble 
at Jerusalem on the next feast of the Passover.to execute 
Jeschu, as it is written, Whosoever blasphemeth the name of 
the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congre- 
gation shall certainly stone him.' 

“But the people of Girmajesa (Germany) and all that 
country round, what is at this day called Wormajesa (Worms) 
in the land of the Emperor, and the little council in the town 
of Wormajesa, answered the King in this wise, Let Jesus go, 
and slay him not! Let him live till he die and perish. 

“ But when the feast of the Passover drew nigh, it was 
heralded through all the land of Judza, that any one who 
~ had aught to say in favour, and for the exculpation, of Jeschu, 
should declare it before the King. But all the people with 
one consent declared that Jeschu must die.” 

ἐς Therefore, on the eve of the Passover, Jeschu was brought 
out of the prison, and they cried before him, So may all thine 
enemies perish, O Lord! And they hanged him on a tree 
outside of Jerusalem, as the King and elders of Jerusalem had 
commanded. 

« And all Israel looked on and praised and glorified God. 

“ Now when even was come, Judas took down the body of 
Jeschu from the tree and laid it in his garden in a conduit. 

“‘ But when the people of Ai heard that Jeschu had been 
hung, they became enemies to Israel. And the people of Ai 
attacked the Israelites, and slew of them two thousand men. 
And the Israelites could not go to the feasts because of the 
men of Ai. Therefore the King proclaimed war against Ai; 
but he could not overcome it, for mightily grew the multitude 
of those who believed in Jeschu, even under the eyes of the 
King in Jerusalem. 

‘¢ And some of these went to Ai, and declared that on the 
third day after Jeschu had been hung, fire had fallen from 


1 Lev. xxiv. 16. 2 This is taken from Sanhedrim, fol. 43. 


THE SECOND TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 11 


heaven, which had surrounded Jeschu, and he had arisen 
alive, and gone up into heaven.! 

“ And the people of Ai believed what was said, and swore 
to avenge on the children of Israel the crime they had com- 
mitted in hanging Jeschu. Now when Judas saw that the 
people of Ai threatened great things, he wrote a letter unto 
them, saying, There is no peace to the ungodly, saith the 
Lord ; therefore do the people take counsel together, and the 
Gentiles imagine a vain thing. Come to Jerusalem and see 
your false prophet ! For, lo! he is dead and buried in a conduit. 

“ Now when they heard this, the men of Ai went to Jeru-. 
salem and saw Jeschu lying where had been said. But, 
nevertheless, when they returned to Ai, they said that all 
Judas had written was false. For, lo! said they, when we 
came to Jerusalem we found that all believed in Jeschu, and 
had risen and had expelled the King out of the city because he 
believed not; and many of the elders have they slain. Then 
the men of Ai believed these words of the messengers, and 
they proclaimed war against Israel. 

“¢ Now when the King and the elders saw that the men of 
Ai were about to encamp against them, and that the numbers 
of these worthless men grew—they were the brethren and 
kinsmen of Jeschu—they took counsel what they should do 
in such sore straits as they were in. 

“ And Judas said, Lo! Jeschu has an uncle Simon, son 
of Kalpus, who is now alive, and he is an honourable old 
man. Give him the incommunicable Name, and let him 
work wonders in Ai, and tell the people that he does them in 
the name of Jesus. And they will believe Simon, because 
he is the uncle of Jeschu. But Simon must make them 
believe that Jeschu committed to him all power to teach them 
not to ill-treat the Israelites, and he has reserved them for his 
own vengeance. 

“This counsel pleased the King and the elders, and they 
went to Simon and told him the matter. 


1 Tt is worth observing how these two false witnesses disagree in almost 
every particular about our blessed Lord’s birth and passion. 


112 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 





« Then went Simon, when he had learned the Name, and 
drew nigh to Ai, and he raised a cloud and thunder and 
lightning. And he seated himself on the cloud, and as the 
thunder rolled he cried, Ye men of Ai, gather yourselves 
together at the tower of Ai, and there will I give you com- 
mandments from Jeschu. 

‘But when the people of Ai heard this voice, they were 
‘sore afraid, and they assembled on all sides about the tower. 
And lo! Simon was borne thither on the cloud; and he 
stepped upon the tower. And the men of Ai fell on their 
faces before him.! Then Simon said, I am Simon Ben 
Kalpus, uncle of Jeschu. Jeschu came and sent me unto 
you to teach you his law, for Jesus is the Son of God. And 
lo! I will give you the law of Jesus, which is a new com- 
mandment. 

“Then he wrought before them signs and wonders, and he 
said to the people of Ai, Swear to me to obey all that I tell 
you. And they swore to him. Then said Simon, Go to 
your own homes. And all the people of Ai returned to their 
dwellings. 

‘¢ Now Simon sat on the tower, and wrote the command- 
ments even as the King and elders had decided. And he 
changed the Alphabet, and gave the letters new names, as 
secretly to protest that all he taught written in those letters 
was lies. And this was the Alphabet he wrote: A, Be, Ce, 
De, E, Ef, Cha, I, Ka, El, Em, En, O, Pe, Ku, Er, Es, Te, 
U, Ix, Ejed, Zet. 

“ And this is the interpretation: My father is Esau, who 
was a huntsman, and was weary; and lo! his sons believed 
in Jesus, who lives, as God. 

«¢ And Simon composed for the deception of the people of 
Ai lying books, and he called them ‘ Avonkelajon’ (Evange- 
lium), which, being interpreted, is the End of Ungodliness. 


1 This is probably taken from the story of Simon Magus in the Pseudo- 
Linus. Simon flies from off a high tower. In the Apocryphal Book of 
the Death of the Virgin, the apostles come to her death-bed riding on 
clouds. Aiis here Rome, not Capernaum. 


THE SECOND TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 115 





But they thought he said, ‘Eben gillajon, which means 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. He also wrote books in the 
names of the disciples of Jeschu, and especially in that of 
Johannes, and said that Jeschu had given him these. 

“ But with special purpose he composed the Book of 
Johannes (the Apocalypse), for the men of Ai thought it con- 
tained mysteries, whereas it contained pure invention. For 
instance, he wrote in the Book of Johannes that Johannes saw 
a beast with seven heads and seven horns and seven crowns, 
and the name of the beast was blasphemy, and the number of 
the beast 666. Now the seven heads mean the seven letters 
which compose in Hebrew the words, ‘Jeschu of Nazareth.’ 
And in like manner the number 666 is that which is the sum 
of the letters composing this name. In like way did Simon 
compose all the books to deceive the people, as the King and 
the elders had bidden him. 

“ And on the sixth day of the third month Simon sat on 
the cloud, and the people of Ai were gathered together before 
him to the tower, and he gave them the book Avonkelajon, 
and said to them, When ye have children born to you, ye 
must sprinkle them with water, in token that Jeschu was 
washed with the water Boleth, and ye must observe all the 
commandments that are written in the book Avonkelajon. 
And ye must wage no war against the people of Israel, for 
Jeschu has reserved them to avenge himself on them himself. 

“Now when the people of Ai heard these words, they 
answered that they would keep them. And Simon returned 
on his cloud to Jerusalem. And all the people thought he 
had gone up in a cloud to heaven to bring destruction on the 
Israelites! 

“ Not long after this, King Herod died, and was succeeded 
by his son in the kingdom of Israel. But when he had 
obtained the throne, he heard that the people of Ai had made 


1 The author probably saw representations of the Ascension and of the 
Last Judgment, with Christ seated with the Books of Life and Death in his 
hand on a great white cloud, and composed this story out of what he saw, 
associating the pictures with the floating popular legend of Simon Magus, 


114 JEWISH ANTI-GOSPELS. 


images in honour of Jesus and Mary, and he wrote letters to 
Ai and ordered their destruction; otherwise he would make 
war against them. 

‘‘Then the people of Ai sent asking help of the Emperor 
against the King of Israel. But the Emperor would not 
assist them and war against Israel. Therefore, when the 
people of Ai saw that there was no help, they burned the 
images and bound themselves before the sons of Israel. 

“ And about this time Mirjam, the mother of Jeschu, died. 
Then the King ordered that she should be buried at the foot 
of the tree on which Jeschu had hung; and there he also 
had the brothers and sisters of Jeschu hung up. And they 
were hung, and a memorial stone was set up on the spot. 

“ But the worthless men, their kinsmen, came and destroyed 
the memorial stone, and set up another in its stead, on which 
they wrote the words, ‘Lo! this is,a ladder set upon the 
earth, whose head reaches to heaven, and the angels of God 
ascend and descend upon it, and the mother rejoices here in 
her children, Allelujah !’ 

“Now when the King heard this, he destroyed the me- 
morial they had erected, and killed a hundred of the kindred 
of Jeschu. 

“Then went Simon, son of Kalpus, to the King and said, 
Suffer me, and I will draw away these people from Jeru- 
salem. And the King said, Be it so; go, and the Lord be 
with thee! Therefore Simon went secretly to these worth- 
less men, and said to them, Let us go together to Ai, and 
there shall ye see wonders which I will work. And some 
went to Ai, but others seated themselves beside Simon on 
his cloud, and left Jerusalem with him. And on the way 
Simon cast down those who sat on the cloud with him upon 
the earth, so that they died.} 

“And when Simon returned to Jerusalem, he told the King 


1 In the story of Simon the Sorcerer, it is at the prayer of Simon Peter 
that the Sorcerer falls whilst flying and breaks all his bones. Perhaps the 
author saw a picture of the Judgment with saints on the cloud with Jesus, 
and the lost falling into the flames of hell. 


THE SECOND TOLEDOTH JESCHU. 115 


what he had done, and the King rejoiced greatly. And Simon 
left not the court of the King till his death. And when he 
died, all the Jews observed the day as a fast, and it was the 
9th of the month Teboth (January). 

“ But those who had gone to Ai at the word of Simon be- 
lieved that Simon and those with him had gone up together 
into heaven on the cloud. 

“And when men saw what Simon had taught the people 
of Ai in the name of Jesus, they followed them also, and they 
took them the daughters of Ai to wife, and sent letters into 
the furthest islands with the book Avonkelajon, and under- 
took for themselves, and for their descendants, to hold to all 
the words of the book Avonkelajon. 

“‘ Therefore they abolished the Law, and chose the first day 
of the week as the Sabbath, for that was the birthday of 
Jesus, and they ordained many other customs and bad feasts. 
Therefore have they no part and lot in Israel. They are 
accursed in this world, and accursed in the world to come. 
But the Lord bless his people Israel with peace. 

“These are the words of the Rabbi Jochanan, son of 
Saccai, in Jerusalem.” 


That this second version of the “Life of Jeschu” is ~ 
later than the first one, I think there can be little doubt. 
It is more full of absurdities than the first, it adopts 
German household tales, and exhibits an ignorance of 
history even more astounding than in the first Life. The 
preachers of the “ Evangelium” marry wives, and there 
is a burning of images of St. Mary and our Lord. These 
are perhaps indications of its having been composed after 
the Reformation. 

Luther did not know anything of the Life published 
later by Huldrich. The only Toledoth Jeschu he was 
acquainted with was that afterwards published by Wa- 
genseil. 





PARE EE 


THE LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


Under this head are classed all those Gospels whose tendency is 
Judaizing, which sprang into existence in the Churches of Palestine 
and Syria. 

These may be ranged in two sub-classes— 

a. Those akin to the Gospel of St. Matthew. 
8. Those related to the Gospel of St. Mark. 
To the first class belong— 
1. The Gospel of the Twelve, or of the Hebrews. 
2. The Gospel of the Clementines. 
To the second class belong, probably— 


1. The Gospel of St. Peter. 
2. The Gospel of the Egyptians. 












AG TER Poe 
᾿ ee 







ἱ » rr Tea 
‘ve Hr eA YR LA 1¥ if ai, 
᾽ eri Mt AL ἢ) iH Ἵ | i 5 i 4 4 Agi ti 









ie cf 4 ' - 
ny. % oe ue | ar ᾿ eae VO ee 4 ᾿ ry ir 4 ‘ ' 
a acme Rel ν ONIN WADE) MeLie ba Sestonig aim Ly 


ey ft ἮΣ ΜῊ hy MG va re al ei Spit arate we ots ΠῚ 
ie, ‘ ui “4, * Ν᾿ , ᾿ 





ean load wha we uF δ ae 


wee wt Romi ig ie 2h τ ot GP area 


J τ - 





PART IZ. 


THE LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


΄ 1: 
THE GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 
1. The Fragments extant. 


EUSEBIUS quotes Papias, Irenzeus and Origen, as autho- 
rities for his statement that St. Matthew wrote his 
Gospel first in Hebrew. 

Papias, a contemporary of Polycarp, who was a disciple 
of St. John, and who carefully collected all information 
he could obtain concerning the apostles, declares that 
“ Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew dialect,! and 
that every one translated it as he was able.”? 

Trenzeus, a disciple of Polycarp, and therefore also 
likely to have trustworthy information on this matter, 
says, “ Matthew among the Hebrews wrote a Gospel in 
their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching 
the gospel at Rome, and founding the Church there.” 

In a fragment, also, of Irenzeus, edited by Dr. Grabe, 
it is said that “the Gospel according to Matthew was 
written to the Jews, for they earnestly desired a Messiah 


1 ἁΕβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ. 2 Huseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. ς, 39. 
3 Ibid. lib. v. ὁ: 8. 


120 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





of the posterity of David. Matthew, in order to satisfy 
them on this point, began his Gospel with the genealogy 
of Jesus.’ 

Origen, in a passage preserved by Eusebius, has this 
statement: “I have learned by tradition concerning the 
four Gospels, which alone are received without dispute 
by the Church of God under heaven, that the first was 
written by St. Matthew, once a tax-gatherer, afterwards 
an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for the 
benefit of the Jewish converts, composed in the Hebrew 
language.”? And again, in his Commentary on St. John, 
“We begin with Matthew, who, according to tradition, 
wrote first, publishing his Gospel to the believers who 
were of the circumcision.” 

Eusebius, who had collected the foregoing testimonies 
on a subject which, in that day, seems to have been un- 
disputed, thus records what he believed to be a well- 
authenticated historical fact: “Matthew, having first 
preached to the Hebrews, delivered to them, when he 
was preparing to depart to other countries, his Gospel 
composed in their native language.”? 

St. Jerome follows Papias: “Matthew, who is also 
Levi, from a publican became an apostle, and he first 
composed his Gospel of Christ in Judea, for those of 
the circumcision who believed, and wrote it in Hebrew 
words and characters; but who translated it afterwards 
into Greek is not very evident. Now this Hebrew Gospel 
is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea which 
Pamphilus the martyr so diligently collected. I also 
obtained permission of the Nazarenes of Beréea in Syria, 
who use this volume, to make a copy of it. In which 
it is to be observed that, throughout, the Evangelist when 


1 Spicileg. Patrum, Tom. I. 2 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 25. 
3 Ibid, iii, 24, 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. Pat 


quoting the witness of the Old Testament, either in his 
own person or in that of the Lord and Saviour, does not 
follow the authority of the Seventy translators, but the 
Hebrew Scriptures, from which he quotes these two 
passages, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my Son, and, 
‘Since he shall be called a Nazarene’”! And again: 
“That Gospel which is called the Gospel of the Hebrews, 
and which has lately been translated by me into Greek and 
Latin, and was used frequently by Origen, relates,” το. 
Again : “ That Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites 
make use of, and which I have lately translated into 
Greek from the Hebrew, and which by many is called 
the genuine Gospel of .Matthew.”? And once more: 
“The Gospel of the Hebrews, which is written in the 
Syro-Chaldaic tongue, and in Hebrew characters, which 
the Nazarenes make use of at this day, is also called the 
Gospel of the Apostles, or, as many think, is that of 
Matthew, is in the library of Ceesarea.’* 

St. Epiphanius is even more explicit. He says that 
the Nazarenes possessed the most complete Gospel of 
St. Matthew,° as it was written at first in Hebrew ;° and 
’ “they have it still in Hebrew characters; but I do not 
know if they have cut off the genealogies from Abraham 
to Christ.” “We may affirm as a certain fact, that 
Matthew alone among the writers of the New Testament 
wrote the history of the preaching of the Gospel in 
Hebrew, and in Hebrew characters.’ This Hebrew 
Gospel, he adds, was known to Cerinthus and Carpocrates. 
The subscriptions of many MSS. and versions bear 


1 §t. Hieron. De vir. illust., 5. v. Matt. 
2 Ibid. s.v. Jacobus. 3 7017. in Matt. xii. 13. 
4 Ibid. Contra. Pelag. iii, 1. 
5 Ἔχουσι δὲ (ot NaZapaiot) τὸ κατὰ Μαϑαῖον εὐαγγέλιον πληρέστατον 
éBpavorit,—Heer. xxix. 9, 
5 Καθῶς ἐξ ἀρχῆς étypdon.—lbid. 7. Toid. xxx.) 5. 
α 


122 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





the same testimony. Several important Greek codices 
of St. Matthew close with the statement that he wrote 
in Hebrew; the Syriac and Arabic versions do the same. 
The subscription of the Peschito version is, “ Finished 
is the holy Gospel of the preaching of Matthew, which 
he preached in Hebrew in the land of Palestine.” That 
of the Arabic version reads as follows: “Here ends the 
copy of the Gospel of the apostle Matthew. He wrote 
it in the land of Palestine, by the inspiration of the Holy 
Spirit, in the Hebrew language, eight years after the 
bodily ascension of Jesus the Messiah into heaven, and 
in the first year of the Roman Emperor, Claudius Ceesar.” 

The title of Gospel of the Hebrews was only given to 
the version known to Jerome and Epiphanius, because 
it was in use among the Hebrews. But amongst the 
Nazarenes it was called “ The Gospel of the Apostles,”? 
or “The Gospel of the Twelve.”* St. Jerome expressly 
says that “the Gospel used by the Nazarenes is also 
called the Gospel of the Apostles.” That the same 
Gospel should bear two names, one according to its re- 
puted authors, the other according to the community 
which used it, is not surprising. : 

Justin Martyr probably alludes to it under a slightly 
different name, “The Recollections of the Apostles.’ 
He says that these Recollections were a Gospel.2 He 
adopted the word used by Xenophon for his recollections 
of Socrates. What the Memorabilia of Xenophon were 


1 Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ τοὺς ἀποστόλους. 

2 Ἐῤαγγέλιον κατὰ τοὺς δώδεκα. Origen calls it “The Gospel of the 
Twelve Apostles,” Homil. i. in Luc. St. Jerome the same, in his Prom. 
in Comment. sup. Matt. 

3 Adv. Pelag. iii. 10. 4 ᾿Απομνημονεύματα τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων. 

5 «(Ἔν τοῖς γεγομένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, a καλεῖται 
Εὐαγγέλια." And ““ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ Evayyedlw,” when speaking of these 
Reminiscences, Dialog. cum Tryphon. § 11. Just. Mart. Opera, ed. Cologne, 
p, 227. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 129 


concerning the martyred philosopher, that the Memora- 
bilia of the Apostles were concerning the martyred Re- 
deemer. 

It is probable that this Hebrew Gospel of the Twelve 
was the only one with which Justin Martyr was ac- 
quainted. 

Justin Martyr was a native of Samaria, and his 
acquaintance with Christianity was probably made in 
the communities of Nazarenes scattered over Syria. By 
family he was a Greek, and was therefore by blood 
inclined to sympathize with the Gentile rather than the 
Jewish Christians. This double tendency is manifest in 
his writings. He judges the Ebionites, even the nar- 
rowest of their sectarian rings, with great tenderness; 
but he proclaims that Gentiledom had yielded better 
Christians than Jewdom.! Justin distinguishes between 
the Ebionites. There were those who in their own prac- 
tice observed the Mosaic Law, believing in Christ as the 
flower and end of the Law, but without exacting the 
game observance of believing Gentiles ; and there were _ 
_ those who not only observed the Law themselves, but 

imposed it on their Gentile converts. His sympathies 
were with the former, whom he regards as the true fol- 
lowers of the apostles, and not with the latter. 

Justin’s conversion took place circ. A.D. 133. He is a 
valuable testimony to the divisions among the Nazarenes 
or Ebionites in the second century, just when Gnostic 
views were infiltrating among the extreme Judaizing 
section. 

Justin Martyr’s Christian training took place in the 
Nazarene Church, in the orthodox, milder section. He 
no doubt inherited the traditional prejudice against St. 
Paul, for he neither mentions him by name, nor quotes 
any of his writings. That he should have omitted to 

11 Apol. ii. 
G 2 


124 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


ae} 





quote St. Paul in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew is 
not surprising; but one cannot doubt that had he seen 
the Epistles of the Apostle of the Gentiles, he would 
have cited them, or shown that they had influenced the 
current of his thoughts in his two Apologies addressed 
to Gentiles. He quotes “the book that is called the 
Gospel” as if there were but one; but what Gospel was 
it? It has been frequently observed that the quotations 
of Justin are closer to the parallel passages in St. Mat- 
thew than to those of the other Canonical Gospels. But 
the only Gospel he names is the Gospel of the Twelve. 

Did Justin Martyr possess the Gospel of St. Matthew, 
or some other ? 

It is observable that he diverges from the Gospel nar- 
rative in several particulars. It is inconceivable that 
this was caused by defect of memory. Two or three 
of those texts in which he differs from our Canonical 
Gospels occur several times in his writings, and always 
in the same form Would it not be strange that his 
memory should fail him each time, and on each of these 
passages? But though his memory may have been in- 
accurate in recording exact words, the differences that 
have been noticed between the citations of Justin Martyr 
and the Canonical Gospel of St. Matthew are not confined 
to words; they extend to particulars, to facts. Verbal 
differences are accountable for by lapse of memory, but 
it is not so with facts. One can understand how in 
quoting by memory the mode of expressing the same 
facts may vary, but not that the facts themselves should 
be different. If the facts cited are different, we are forced 
to conclude that the citations were derived from another 
source. And such is the case with Justin. 


1 Justin Mart. Opp. ed. Cologne ; 2 Apol. p. 64; Dialog. cum Tryph. 
p. 801; ibid. p. 253; 2 Apol. p. 64; Dial. cum Tryph. p. 326; 2 Apol. 
pp. 95, 96. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 125 


Five or six times does he say that the Magi came from 
Arabia; St. Matthew says only that they came from 
the East.” 

He says that our Lord was born in a cave? near Bethle- 
hem; that, when he was baptized, a bright light shone 
over him; and he gives words which were heard from 
heaven, which are not recorded by any of the Evan- 
gelists. 

That our Lord was born in a cave is probable enough, 
but where did Justin learn it? Certainly not from St. 
Matthew’s Gospel, which gives no particulars of the birth 
of Christ at Bethlehem. St. Luke says he was born in 
the stable of aninn. Justin, we are warranted in sus- 
pecting, derived the fact of the stable being a cave from 
the only Gospel with which he was acquainted, that of 
the Hebrews. 

The tradition of the scene of Christ’s nativity having 
been a cave was peculiarly Jewish. It is found in the 
Apoeryphal Gospels of the Nativity and the Protevan- 
gelium, both of which unquestionably grew up in Judea. 
That Justin should endorse this tradition leads to the 
* egonclusion that he found it so stated in his Gospel. 

I shall speak of the hght and voice at the baptism 
presently. 

St. Epiphanius says that the Ebionite Gospel began 
with, “In the days of Herod, Caiaphas being the high- 
priest, there was a man whose name was John,” and so 
on, like the 3rd chap. St. Matthew. But this was the 
mutilated Gospel of the Hebrews used by the Gnostic 
Ebionites, who were heretical on the doctrine of the 


1 Οἱ ἐξ ’ApaBiac μάγοι, or μάγοι ἀπὸ ’ApaBiac.—Dialog. cum Tryph. 
pp. 303, 315, 328, 330, 334, &e. 

2 Matt. ii. 1. 

3 Ἔν σπηλαίῳ τινὶ σύνεγγυς τῆς κώμης Karédvoe. —Dialog. cum Tryph., 
pp. 303, 304. 


. 


126 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


nativity of our Lord, and whom Justin Martyr speaks 
of as rejecting the supernatural birth of Christ.’ 

Among the Nazarenes, orthodox and heretical, but one 
Gospel was recognized, and that the Hebrew Gospel of 
the Twelve; but the Gospel in use among the Gnostic 
Ebionites became more and more corrupt as they 
diverged further from orthodoxy. 

But the primitive Hebrew Gospel was held “in high 
esteem by those Jews who received the faith.”” “It is 
the Gospel,” says St. Jerome, “that the Nazarenes use 
at the present day.”* “It is the Gospel of the Hebrews 
that the Nazarenes read,” says Origen.* 

Was this Gospel of the Twelve, or of the Hebrews, 
the original of St. Matthew’s Canonical Greek Gospel, or 
was it a separate compilation? This is a question to be 
considered presently. 

The statement of the Fathers that the Gospel of St. 
Matthew was first written in Hebrew, must of course 
be understood to mean that it was written in Aramaic 
or Palestinian Syriac. 

Now we have extant two versions of the Gospels, 
St. Matthew’s included, in Syriac, the Peschito and the 
Philoxenian. The latter needs only a passing mention ;. 
it was avowedly made from the Greek, A.D. 508. But 
the Peschito is much more ancient. The title of 
“Peschito” is an emphatic Syrian term for that which 
is “simple,” “uncorrupt” and “true ;” and, applied from 
the beginning to this version, it strongly indicates the 
veneration and confidence with which it has ever been 
regarded by all the Churches of the East.2 When this 


1 Dial. cum Tryph. p. 291. 2 Euseb. Hist. Eecl. iii. 25. 

3 Ady. Pelag. iii. 1. 4 Comm. in Ezech. xxiv. 7. 

δ. ἐς De versione Syriacé testatur Sionita, quod ut semper in summa 
veneratione et auctoritate habita erat apud omnes populos qui Chaldaica 
sive Syriacé utuntur lingua, sic publicé in omnibus eorum ecclesiis anti- 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 127 


version was made cannot be decided by scholars. A 
copy in the Laurentian Library bears so early a date as 
A.D. 586; but it existed long before the translation was 
made by Philoxenus in 508. The first Armenian version 
from the Greek was made in 431, and the Armenians 
already, at that date, had a version from the Syriac, 
made by Isaac, Patriarch of Armenia, some twenty years 
previously, in 410. Still further back, we find the Pes- 
chito version quoted in the writings of St. Ephraem, 
who lived not later than A.D. 370.1 

Was this Peschito version founded on the Greek 
canonical text, or, in the case of St. Matthew, on the 
“Hebrew” Gospel? I think there can be little question 
that it was translated from the Greek. There can be no 
question that the Gospels of St. Mark, St. Luke, St. John, 
the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St. Paul, and 
those of the other Epistles contained in this version,? 
are from the Greek, and it 1s probable that the version 
of St. Matthew was made at the same time from the 
received text. The Syrian churches were separated from 
the Nazarene community in sympathy ; their acceptance 
of St. Paul’s Epistles is a proof that they were so; and 
these Epistles were accepted by them at avery early age, 
as we gather from internal evidence in the translation. 

The Syrian churches would be likely, moreover, when 
seeking for copies of the Christian Scriptures, to ask for 
them from churches which were regarded as orthodox, 
rather than from a dwindling community which was 
thought to be heretical. 


quissimis, constitutis in Syrid, Mesopotamid, Chaldea, Mgypto, et denique 
in universis Orientis partibus dispersis ac disseminatis accepta ac lecta 
fuit.’—Walton : London Polyglott, 1657. 

1 In Matt. iii. 17; Lukei. 71 ; John i. 3; Col. iii. 5. 

? It omits the 2nd and 38rd Epistles of St. John, the Epistle of Jude, and 
the Apocalypse. 


128 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


The Peschito version of St. Matthew follows the 
canonical Greek text, and not the Gospel of the He- 
brews, in such passages as can be compared : not one 
of the peculiarities of the latter find their echo in the 
Peschito text. 

The Gospel of the Hebrews has not, therefore, been 
preserved to us in the Peschito St. Matthew. The trans- 
lations made by St. Jerome in Greek and Latin have 
also perished. It is not difficult to account for the loss 
of the book. The work itself was in use only by con- 
verted Jews; it was in the exclusive possession of the 
descendants of those parties for whose use it had been 
written. The Greek Gospels, on the other hand, spread 
as Christianity grew. The Nazarenes themselves passed 
away, and their cherished Gospel soon ceased to be 
known among men. 

Some exemplars may have been preserved for a time 
in public libraries, but these would not survive the 
devastation to which the country was exposed from the 
Saracens and other invaders, and it is not probable that 
a solitary copy survives. 

But if the entire Gospel of the Hebrews has not been 
preserved to us, we have got sufficiently numerous frag- 
ments, cited by ancient ecclesiastical writers, to permit 
us, to a certain extent, to judge of the tendencies and 
character of that Gospel. 

It is necessary to observe, as preliminary to our quo- 
tations, that the early Fathers cited passages from this 
Gospel without the smallest prejudice against it either 
historically or doctrinally. They do not seem to have 
considered it apocryphal, as open to suspicion, either 


1 Ag in the food of the Baptist, in the narrative of the baptism, in the 
mention of Zacharias, son of Barachias, in place of Zacharias, son of Jehoi- 
ada, the instruction to Peter on fraternal forgiveness, &c. It interprets 
the name Emmanuel. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 129 


because it contained doctrine at variance with the 
Canonical Greek Gospels, or because it narrated circum- 
stances not found in them. On the contrary, they refer 
to it as a good, trustworthy authority for the facts of our 
Lord’s life, and for the doctrines he taught. 

St. Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Smyrnians,! has in- 
serted in it a passage relative to the appearance of our 
Lord to his apostles after his resurrection, not found in 
the Canonical Gospels, and we should not know whence 
he had drawn it, had not St. Jerome noticed the fact and 
recorded it.” 

St. Clement of Alexandria speaks of the Gospel of 
the Hebrews in the same terms as he speaks of the 
writings of St. Paul and the books of the Old Testa- 
ment.? Origen, who makes some quotations from this 
Gospel, does not, it is true, range it with the Canonical 
Gospels, but he speaks of it with great respect, as one 
highly esteemed by many Christians of his time.‘ 

In the fourth century, no agreement had been come to 
as to the value of this Gospel. Eusebius tells us that 
by some it was reckoned among the Antilegomena, that 
is, among those books which floated between the Ca- 
nonical and the Apocryphal Gospels.° 

The Gospel of St. Matthew and the Gospel of the 
Hebrews were not identical. It is impossible to doubt 
this when we examine the passages of the latter quoted 
by ecclesiastical writers, the majority of which are not 
to be found in the former, and the rest differ from the 
Canonical Gospel, either in details or in the construc- 
tion of the passages which correspond. ' 

Did the difference extend further? This is a ques- 


1 Tenat. Ad. Smyrn. ὁ. 3. 2 Catal. Script. Eccl. 15. 

3 Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 9. 4 Hom. xv. in Jerem. 

. 5 Hist. Eccl. iii, 25. Some of those books of the New Testament now 
regarded as Canonical were also then reckoned among the Antilegomena. 

G3 


130 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


tion it is impossible to answer positively in one way or 
the other, since we only know those passages of the 
Gospel of the Nazarenes which have been quoted by the 
early Fathers. 

But it is probable that the two Gospels did not differ 
from each other except in these passages; for if the 
divergence was greater, one cannot understand how 
St. Jerome, who had both under his eyes, could have 
supposed one to have been the Hebrew original of the 
other. And if both resembled each other closely, it is 
easy to suppose that the ecclesiastical writers who quoted 
from the Nazarene Gospel, quoted only those passages 
which were peculiar to it. 

Let us now examine the principal fragments of this 
Gospel that have been preserved. 

There are some twenty in all, and of these only two 
are in opposition to the general tone of the first Canoni- 
cal Gospel. 

With one of these I shall begin the series of extracts. 

“And straitway,” said Jesus, “the Holy Spirit [my 
mother| took me, and bore me away to the great mountain 
called Thabor.” 1 

Origen twice quotes this passage, once in a fuller 
form. “(She) bore me by one of my hairs to the great 
mountain called Thabor.’ The passage is also quoted 
by St. Jerome.” Origen and Jerome take pains to give 
this passage an orthodox and unexceptionable meaning. 
Instead of rejecting the passage as apocryphal, they 
labour to explain it away—a proof of the high estima- 
tion in which the Gospel of the Twelve was held. The 


1 Ἄρτι ἔλαβε μέ ἡ μήτηρ μοῦ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ἐν μιᾷ τῶν τριχῶν 
μοῦ, καὶ ἀνήνεγκε μὲ εἰς τὸ ὄρος τὸ μέγα CaBwp.—Origen : Hom. xv. in 
Jerem., and in Johan. 

* “Modo tulit me mater mea Spiritus Sanctus in uno capillorum 
meorum.’’—Hieron. in Mich, vii. 6. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 131 


words, “my mother,” are, it can scarcely be doubted, a 
Gnostic interpolation, as probably are also the words, 
“by one of my hairs;” for on one of the occasions on 
which Origen quotes the passage, these words are omitted. 
Probably they did not exist in all the copies of the 
Gospel. 

Our Lord was “led by the Spirit into the wilderness ” 
after his baptism Philip was caught away by the 
Spirit of the Lord from the road between Jerusalem and 
Gaza, and was found at Azotus.2 The notion of trans- 
portation by the Spirit was therefore not foreign to the 
authors of the Gospels. 

The Holy Spirit was represented by the Elkesaites as 
a female principle.2 The Elkesaites were certainly one 
with the Ebionites in their hostility to St. Paul, whose 
Epistles, as Origen tells us, they rejected* And that 
they were a Jewish sect which had relations with Ebion- 
itism appears from a story told by St. Epiphanius, that 
their supposed founder, Elxai, went over to the Ebion- 
ites in the time of Trajan.° They issued from the same 
fruitful field of converts, the Essenes. 

The term by which the Holy Spirit is designated in 
Hebrew is feminine, and lent itself to a theory of the 
Holy Spirit being a female principle, and this rapidly 
slid into identification of the Spirit with Mary. 

The Clementines insist on the universe being com- 
pounded of the male and the female elements. There 
are two sorts of prophecy, the male which speaks of the 
world to come, the female which deals with the world 
that is; the female principle rules this world, the body, 


1 Matt. iv. 1. 2 Acts viii. 39. 

3 Τὴν δὲ θήλειαν καλεῖσθαι ἅγιον mvevpa.—Hippolyt. Refut. ix. 13, 
ed. Dunker, p. 462. So also St. Epiphanius, εἶναι δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα 
θηλξιαν.---Ηφ 68. xix. 4, liii. 1. 

4 Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 38, 5 Heres, %ix;,, 2, xem, 17. 


Φ 


i Ey: LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


all that is visible and material. Beside this female prin- 
ciple stands Christ, the male principle, ruling the spirits 
of men, and all that is invisible and immaterial! The 
Holy Spirit, brooding over the deep and calling the world 
into being, became therefore the female principle in the 
Elkesaite Trinity. 

In Gnosticism, this deification of the female principle, 
which was represented as Prounikos or Sophia among 
the Valentinians, led to the incarnation of the principle 
in women who accompanied the heresiarchs Simon and 
Apelles. Thus the Eternal Wisdom was incarnate in 
Helena, who accompanied Dositheus and afterwards 
Simon Magus,” and in the fair Philoumena who asso- 
ciated with Apelles. 

The same influence seems imperceptibly to have been 
at work in the Church of the Middle Ages, and in the 
pictures and sculptures of the coronation of the Virgin. 
Mary seems in Catholic art to have assumed a position 
as one of the Trinity. 

In the original Gospel of the Hebrews, the passage 
probably stood thus: “And straightway the Holy Spirit 
took me, and bore me to the great mountain Thabor ;” 
and Origen and Jerome quoted from a text corrupted by 
the Gnostic Ebionites. The words “bore me by one of 
my hairs” were added to assimilate the translation to 
that of Habbacuc by the angel, in the apocryphal addi- 
tion to the Book of Daniel. 

We next come to a passage found in the Stromata of 
Clement of Alexandria, who compares it with a sentence 


1 Homilies, iii. 20—27. 

* In the ‘‘Refutation of Heresies” attributed by the Chevalier Bunsen 
and others to St. Hippolytus, Helena is said in Simonian Gnosticism to 
have been the ‘‘lost sheep” of the Gospels, the incarnation of the world 
principle—found, recovered, redeemed, by Simon, the incarnation of the 
divine male principle. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 133 


from the Thezetetus of Plato: “He who wondereth shall 
reign, and he who reigneth shall rest.”* 

This, like the preceding quotation, has a Gnostic hue ; 
but it is impossible to determine its sense in the absence 
of the context. Nor does the passage in the Theetetus 
throw any light upon it. The whole of the passage in 
St. Clement is this: “The beginning of (or search after) 
truth is admiration,’ says Plato. “And Matthias, in 
saying to us in his Traditions, Wonder at what is before 
you, proves that admiration is the first step leading up- 
wards to knowledge. Therefore also it is written in the 
Gospel of the Hebrews, He who shall wonder shall reign, 
and he who reigns shall rest.” 

What were these Traditions of Matthias? In another 
place St. Clement of Alexandria mentions them, and 
quotes a passage from them, an instruction of St. Mat- 
thias: “If he who is neighbour to one of the elect sins, 
the elect sins with him; for if he (the elect) had con- 
ducted himself as the Word requires, then his neighbour © 
would have looked to his ways, and not have sinned.”? 
And, again, he says that the followers of Carpocrates 
appealed to the authority of St. Matthias—probably, 
therefore, to this book, his Traditions—as an excuse for 
giving rein to their lusts. 

These Traditions of St. Matthias evidently contained 
another version of the same passage, or perhaps a portion 
of the same discourse attributed to our Lord, which ran 
somehow thus: “ Wonder at what ws before your eyes 


1 © θαυμάσας βασιλεύσει, γεγράπται, καὶ Ὁ βασιλεύσας ἀναπαύσεται. 
Clem. Alex. Stromata, i. 9. 


2 Strom. lib. vii. This was exaggerated in the doctrine of the Albi- 
genses in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The ‘‘ Perfects,” the min- 
isters of the sect, ‘‘reconciled” the converted. But if one of the Perfect 
sinned (ἐ.6. ate meat or married), all whom he had reconciled fell with him 
from grace, even those who were dead and in heaven, 


134 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


(1.6. the mighty works that I do); fer he that wondereth 
shall reign, and he that reigneth shall rest.” 

It is not impossible that this may be a genuine remi- 
niscence of part of our Lord’s teaching. 

Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, | 
says that Jesus exercised the trade of a carpenter, and 
that he made carts, yokes, and like articles. 

Where did he learn this? Not from St. Matthew’s 
Gospel; probably from the lost Gospel which he quotes. 

St. Jerome quotes as a saying of our Lord, “Be ye 
proved money-changers.”* He has no hesitation in calling 
it a saying of the Saviour. It occurs again in the Cle- 
mentine Homilies? and in the Recognitions.* It is 
cited much more fully by St. Clement of Alexandria in 
his Stromata: “Be ye proved money-changers ; retain that 
which is good metal, reject that which is bad.”® Neither 
St. Jerome, St. Clement of Alexandria, nor the author 
of the Clementines, give their authority for the statement 
they make, that this is a saying of the Lord; but we 
may, I think, fairly conclude that St. Jerome drew it 
from the Hebrew Gospel he knew so well, having trans- 
lated it into Greek and Latin, and which he looked upon 
as an unexceptionable authority. 

Whence the passage came may be guessed by the use 
made of it by those who quote it. It probably followed 
our Lord’s saying, “I am not come to destroy the Law, 
but to fulfil it.” “ Nevertheless, be ye proved exchangers ; 
retain that which is good metal, reject that which is 
bad.” 


1 Dial. cum Tryph. § 88. 

2 “Sicut illud apostoli libenter audire : Omnia probate ; quod bonum est 
tenete ; et Salvatoris verba dicentis: Esto probati nummularii.”—Epist. 
ad Minervium et Alexandrum. 


8 Homil. ii. 51, 111. 50, xviii. 20. Τίνεσθε τραπεζίταί δόκιμοι. 
4 Recog. ii. 51. 5 Stromat. i, 28. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 135 


Another passage is not given to us verbatim by St. 
Jerome; he merely alludes to it in one of his Commen- 
taries, saying that Jesus had declared him guilty of a 
grievous crime who saddened the spirit of his brother.’ It 
probably occurred in the portion of the Gospel of the 
Hebrews corresponding with the 18th chapter of St. Mat- 
thew, and may be restored somewhat as follows: “ Woe 
unto the world because of offences! for it must needs 
be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the 
offence cometh, and the soul of lis brother be made sore. 
Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee,” &c. 

Another passage is in perfect harmony with the teach- 
ing of our Lord, and, like that given last, may very 
possibly have formed part of his teaching. It is also 
given by St. Jerome, and therefore in Latin: “ Be never 
glad wnless ye are in charity with your brother.’ 

St. Jerome, in his treatise against Pelagius, quotes 
from the Gospel of the Hebrews the following passage : 
“ Tf thy brother has sinned in word against thee, and has 
made satisfaction, forgive him unto seven times a day. 
Simon, his disciple, said unto him, Until seven times! 
The Lord answered, saying, Verily I say wnto thee, until 
seventy times seven ;” and then probably, “for I say 
unto thee, Be never glad till thou art in charity with thy 
brother.” 

The Gospel of the Nazarenes supplied details not 
found in that of St. Matthew. It related of the man 
with the withered hand, healed by our Lord,* that he 


1 ‘Inter maxima ponitur crimina qui fratris sui spiritum contristaverit.”’ 
St. Hieron. Comm. in Ezech. xvi. 7. 

2 «¢Nunquam leeti sitis nisi cum fratrem vestrum videritis in charitate.” . 

3 “Si peccaverit frater tuus in verbo, et satis tibi fecerit, septies in die 
suscipe eum. Dixit illi Simon discipulus ejus: Septies in die? Respondit 
Dominus et dixit ei: Etiam ego dico tibi, usque septuagies septies.”’—Adv. 
Pelag. i. 3. 

4 Matt. xxvii. 16. 


190 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


was a mason,' and gave the words of the appeal made to 
Jesus by the man invoking his compassion: “J was a 
mason, working for my bread with my hands. I pray 
thee, Jesus, restore me to soundness, that I eat not my bread 
in disgrace.”? 

It relates, what is found in St. Mark and St. Luke, 
but not in St. Matthew, that Barabbas was cast into 
prison for sedition and murder ;? and it gives the inter- 
pretation of the name, “Son of a Rabbi.”* These parti- 
culars may be correct ; there is no reason to doubt them. 
The interpretation of the name may be only a gloss which 
found its way into the text. 

Eusebius says that Papias “ gives a history of a woman 
who had been accused of many sins before the Lord, 
which is also contained in the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews.”® Of this we know nothing further, for the 
text is not quoted by any ancient writers; but probably 
it was the same story as that of the woman taken in 
adultery related in St. John’s Gospel. But then, why 
did not Eusebius say that Papias gave “the history of 
the woman accused of adultery, which is also related in 
the Gospel of St. John”? Why does he speak of that 
story as being found in a Gospel written in the Syro- 
Chaldean tongue, with which he himself was unac- 
quainted,’ when the same story was in the well-known 
Canonical Greek Gospel of St. John? The conclusion 
one must arrive at is, elther that the stories were suffi- 

1 “Homo iste qui aridam habet manum in Evangelio quo. utuntur 
Nazarei cementarius scribitur.”—Hieron. Comm. in Matt. xii. 13. 


2 “Homo iste. . . scribitur istius modi auxilium precans, Cementarius 
eram, manibus victum queritans ; precor te, Jesu, ut mihi restituas sani- 
tatem, ne turpiter manducem cibos.”—Jbid. 


3 Ibid. xxvii. 16. 

4 ἐς Pilius Magistri eorum interpretatus.”—Jbzd. 

5 Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. 6 viii, 83—11. 
7 He probably knew it through a translation. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 137 


ciently differently related for him not to recognize them 
as the same, or that the incident in St. John’s Gospel is 
an excerpt from the Gospel of the Hebrews, or rather 
from a translation of it, grafted into the text of the 
Canonical Gospel. The latter opinion is favoured by 
some critics, who think that the story of the woman 
taken in adultery did not belong to the original text, 
but was inserted in it in the fourth or fifth century. 

Those passages of the Gospel of the Nazarenes which 
most resemble passages in the Gospel of St. Matthew 
are not, however, identical with them; some differ only 
in the wording, but others by the form in which they | 
are given. 

And the remarkable peculiarity about them is, that 
the lessons in the Gospel of the Hebrews seem preferable 
to those in the Canonical Gospel. This was apparently 
the opinion of St. Jerome. 

In chap. vi. ver. 11 of St. Matthew’s Gospel, we have 
the article of the Lord’s Prayer, “ Give us this day our 
daily bread.” The words used in the Greek of St. Mat- 
thew are, TOV ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον. The word ἐπιούσιος 
is one met with nowhere else, and is peculiar. The 
word οὐσία means originally that which is essential, and 
belongs to the true nature or property of things. In 
Stoic philosophy it had the same significance as ὕλη, 
matter ; ἐπιούσιον ἄρτον would therefore seem most justly 
to be rendered by supersubstantial, the word employed 
by St. Jerome. 

“Give us this day our supernatural bread.” But in 
the Gospel of the Nazarenes, according to St. Jerome, 
the Syro-Chaldaic word for ἐπιούσιον was wa, which 
signifies “ to-morrow’s,” that is, our “ future,” or “daily” 
bread. “ Gwe us this day the bread for the morrow,”! cer- 
tainly was synonymous with, “Give us this day our 


1 Comm. in Matt. i. 6. 


198 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


daily bread.” It is curious that the Protestant Reformers, 
shrinking from translating the word ἐπιούσιον according 
to its apparently legitimate rendering, lest they should 
give colour to the Catholic idea of the daily bread of 
the Christian soul being the Eucharist, should have 
adopted a rendering more in accordance with an Apo- 
eryphal than with a Canonical Gospel. 

In St. Matthew, xxiii. 35, Jesus reproaches the Jews 
for their treatment of the prophets, and declares them 
responsible for all the blood shed upon the earth, “from 
the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, 
son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the Temple and 
the altar.” 

Now the Zacharias to whom our Lord referred was 
Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, and not of Barachias, who 
was stoned “in the court of the house of the Lord” by 
order of Joash.t Zacharias, son of Barachias, was not 
killed till long after the death of our Lord. He was 
massacred by the zealots inside the Temple, shortly 
before the siege, 1.6. about A.D. 69. 

Either, then, the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew was 
not written till after the siege of Jerusalem, and so this 
anachronism passed into it, or the error is due to a 
copyist, who, having heard of the murder of Zacharias, 
son of Barachias, but who knew nothing of the Zacharias 
mentioned in Chronicles, corrected the Jehoiada of the 
original into Barachias, thinking that thereby he was 
rectifying a mistake. 

Now in the Gospel of the Nazarenes the name stood 
correctly, and the passage read, “ from the blood of 
righteous Abel wnto the blood of Zacharias, the son of 
Jchoiada.” 3 


1 2 Chron. xxiv. 20. 


2 “Τῇ Evangelis quo utuntur Nazareni, pro filio Barachie, filium Jojade 
reperimus scriptum.”—Hieron. in Matt. xxiii. 35. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 139 





In both these last quoted passages, the preference 15 
to be given to the Nazarene Gospel, and probably also 
in that relating to forgiveness of a brother. The lost 
Gospel in that passage requires the brother to make 
satisfaction. It is no doubt the higher course to forgive 
a brother, whether he repent or not, seventy times seven 
times in the day; but it may almost certainly be con- 
cluded that our Lord meant that the forgiveness should be 
conditional on his repentance, for in St. Luke’s Gospel 
the repentance of the trespassing brother is distinctly 
required. “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke 
him ; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass 
against thee seven times a day, and seven times in a 
day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt for- 
give him.”! In St. Luke this is addressed to all the 
disciples; in St. Matthew, to Peter alone; but there 
can be little doubt that both passages refer to the same 
instruction, and that the fuller accounts in St. Luke and 
the Gospel of the Hebrews are the more correct. There 
may be less elevation in the precept, subject to the two 
restrictions, first, that the offence should be a verbal 
one, and secondly, that it should be apologized for; but 
it brings it more within compass of being practised. 

We come next to a much longer fragment, which shall 
be placed parallel with the passage with which it cor- 
responds in St. Matthew. 


THE GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. ST. MATTHEW xix. 16—24. 


“ Another rich man said “ And, behold, one came 
unto him: Master, what good and said unto him, Good 
thing shall I do that I may Master, what good thing shall 
live? He said unto him: O I do, that I may have eternal 
man, fulfil the Laws and the life? 

Prophets. And he answered “And he said unto him, 


1 Luke xvii. 3, 4. 


140 


him, I have done so. Then 
said he unto him, Go, sell all 
that thou hast, and give to the 
poor, and come, follow me. 

“ Then the rich man began 
to smite his head, and τέ 
pleased him not. And the 
Lord said unto him, How 
sayest thou, I have fulfilled 
the Law and the Prophets, 
when tt is written in the Law, 
Thou shalt love thy neighbour 
as thyself; and lo! many of 
thy brethren, sons of Abra- 
ham, are covered with filth, 
and dying of hunger, and 
thy house is full of many good 
things, and nothing therefrom 
goeth forth at any time unto 
them. 

“ And turning himself about, 
he said unto Simon, his dis- 
ciple, sitting near him, Simon, 
son of Jonas, it is easier for 
a camel to go through the eye 
of a needle, than for a rich 
man to enter into the kingdom 
of heaven.” + 


LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


Why callest thou me good? 
there is none good but one, 
that is, God : but if thou wilt 
enter into life, keep the com- 
mandments. 

“ He saith unto him, Which? 
Jesus said, Thou shalt do no 
murder, Thou shalt not com- 
mit adultery, Thou shalt not 
steal, Thou shalt not bear 
false witness, 

“ Honour thy father and 
thy mother: and, Thou shalt 
love thy neighbour as thyself. 

“The young man saith un- 
to him, All these things have 
I kept from my youth up: 
what lack I yet? 

“ Jesus said unto him, If 
thou wilt be perfect, go and 
sell that thou hast, and give 
to the poor, and thou shalt 
have treasure in heaven: and 
come and follow me. 

“ But when the young man 
heard that saying, he went 
away sorrowful: for he had 
great possessions. 


1 “Dixit ad eum alter divitum : Magister, quid bonum faciens vivam ? 


Dixit ei: Homo, leges et prophetas fac. 


Respondit ad eum: Feci. 


Dixit ei: Vade, vende omnia que possides et divide pauperibus, et veni, 
sequere me. Czpit autem dives scalpere caput suum et non placuit ei. 
Et dixit ad eum Domimus: Quomodo dicis: Legem feci et prophetas, 
quoniam scriptum est in lege: Dilige proximum tuum sicut teipsum, et 
ecce multi fratres tui filii Abrahz amicti sunt stercore, morientes pre fame, 
et domus tua plena est multis bonis et non egreditur omnino aliquid ex ea 
ad eos. Et conversus dixit Simoni discipulo suo sedenti apud se: Simon 
fili Joanne, facilius est camelum intrare per foramen acus quam divitem 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 141 


“Then said Jesus unto his 
disciples, Verily I say unto 
you, That a rich man shall 
hardly enter into the kingdom 
of heaven. 

“And again I say unto 
you, It is easier for a camel 
to go through the eye of a 
needle, than for a rich man 
to enter into the kingdom of 
God.” 


The comparison of these two accounts is not favour- 
able to that in the Canonical Gospel. It is difficult to 
understand how a Jew could have asked, as did the rich 
young man, what commandments he ought to keep in 
order that he might enter into life. The Decalogue was 
known by heart by every Jew. Moreover, the narrative 
in the lost Gospel is more connected than in the 
Canonical Gospel. The reproach made by our Lord is 
admirably calculated to bring home to the rich man’s 
conscience the truth, that, though professing to observe 
the letter of the Law, he was far from practising its 
spirit ; and this leads up quite naturally to the declara- 
tion of the difficulty of a rich man obtaining salvation, 
or rather to our Lord’s repeating a proverb probably 
common at the time in the East. 

And lastly, in the proverb addressed aside to Peter, 
instead of to the rich young man, that air of harshness 
which our Lord’s words bear in the Canonical Gospel, 
as spoken to the young man in his sorrow, entirely dis- 


in regnum ccelorum.”’—Origen, Tract. viii. in Matt. xix. 19. The Greek 
text has been lost. 

1 Τὸ is found in the Talmud, Beracoth, fol. 55, 6; Baba Metsia, fol. 
38, ὃ; and it occurs in the Koran, Sura vii. 38. 


142 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


appears. The proverb is uttered, not in stern rebuke, 
but as the expression of sad disappointment, when the 
rich man has retired. | 

Another fragment from the Gospel of the Hebrews 
relates to the baptism of our Lord. 

The Gospel of St. Matthew gives no explanation of 
the occasion, the motive, of Jesus coming to Jordan to 
the baptism of John. It says simply, “Then cometh 
Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized 
of him.”* But the Nazarene Gospel is more explicit. 

“ Behold, his mother and his brethren said unto him, 
John the Baptist baptizeth for the remission of sins ; let 
us go and be baptized of him. But he said unto them, 
What sin have I committed, that I should be baptized of 
him, wnless it be that in saying this I am in ignorance?”? 

This is a very singular passage. We do not know 
the context, but we may presume that our Lord yields 
to the persuasion of his mother. Such is the tradition 
preserved in another apocryphal work, the “ Preaching 
of St. Paul,” issuing from an entirely different source, 
from a school hostile to the Nazarenes.? 

Another fragment continues the account after a gap. 

“And when the Lord went wp aut of the water, the whole 
fountain of the Holy Spirit descended and rested wpon 
him, and said unto him, My Son, I looked for thee in all 
the prophets, that thou mightest come, and that I might 


1 Matt. 111, 13. 

2 “In Evangelio juxta Hebreos... . narrat historia: Ecce, mater 
Domini et fratres ejus dicebant ei, Joannes Baptista baptizat in remis- 
sionem peccatorum, eamus et baptizemur ab eo. Dixit autem eis; quid 
peccavi, ut vadam et baptizer ab eo? Nisi forte hoc ipsum, quod dixi, 
ignorantia est.” —Cont. Pelag. iii. 2. 

3 ἐς Ad accipiendum Joannis baptisma pene invitum a Matre sua Maria 
esse compulsum.”—lIn a treatise on the re-baptism of heretics, published 
by Rigault at the end of his edition of St. Cyprian. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 


145 





rest wpon thee. 


For thou art my rest, thou art my first- 


begotten Son, who shalt reign throughout eternity.” 
But this is not the only version we have of the nar- 


rative in the Gospel of the Hebrews. 


St. Epiphanius 


gives us another, which shall be placed parallel with 
the corresponding account in St. Matthew. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 


“The people having been 
baptized, Jesus came also, and 
was baptized by John. And 
as he came out of the water, 
the heavens opened, and he 
saw the Holy Spirit of God 
descending under the form of 
a dove, and entering into him. 
And a voice was heard from 
heaven, Thou art my beloved 
Son, and in thee am I well 
pleased. And again, This 
day have I begotten thee. And 
suddenly there shone a great 
light in that place. And John 
seeing it, said, Who art thou, 
Lord? Then a voice was 
heard from heaven, This is 
my beloved Son, in whom I 
am well pleased. Thereat 
John fell at his feet and said, 
I pray thee, Lord, baptize me. 
But he would not, saywg, 


ST. MATTHEW 111. 13—17. 


“Then cometh Jesus from 
Galilee to Jordan unto John, 
to be baptized of him. 

“But John forbad him, 
saying, I have need to be 
baptized of thee, and cometh 
thou to me? 

“And Jesus answering, 
said unto him, Suffer it to be 
so now: for thus it becometh 
us to fulfil all righteousness. 
Then he suffered him. 

“¢ And Jesus, when he was 
baptized, went up straightway 
out of the water ; and, lo, the 
heavens were opened unto 
him, and he saw the Spirit of 
God descending like a dove, 
and lighting upon him : 

“And lo a voice from 
heaven, saying, This is my 
beloved Son, in whom I am 
well pleased.” 


1 « Factum est autem cum ascendisset Dominus de aqua, descendit fons 
omnis Spiritus Sancti, et requievit super eum et dixit illi, Fili mi, in 


omnibus prophetis expectabam te, ut venires et requiescerem in te. 
es enim requies mea, tu es filius meus primogenitus, qui regnas in 


piternum.”—In Mich. vii. 6. 


zt 
sey - 


144 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





Suffer it, for so τέ behoveth 
that all should be accom- 
plished.” + 


That the Gospel stood as in this latter passage quoted 
in the second century among the orthodox Christians 
of Palestine is probable, because with it agrees the brief 
citation of Justin Martyr, who says that when our Lord 
was baptized, there shone a great light around, and a 
voice was heard from heaven, saying, “Thou art my 
Son, this day have I begotten thee.” Both occur in the 
Ebionite Gospel; neither in the Canonical Gospel.” 

This Gospel was certainly known to the writer of the 
Canonical Epistle to the Hebrews, for he twice takes 
this statement as authoritative. “For unto which of 
the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this 
day have I begotten thee?” and more remarkably, 
“Christ glorified not himself to be made an high-priest ; 
but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day 
have I begotten thee.”* In the latter passage the 


1 St. Epiph. Heres. xxx. ὃ 13. Τοῦ λαοῦ βαπτισθέντος, ἦλθε καὶ 
᾿Ιησοῦς καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ὑπὸ τοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου. Καὶ: ὡς ἀνῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ 
ὕδατος, ἠνοίχησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ, καὶ εἶδε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἅγιον 
εἴδει ἐν περιστερὰς κατελθούσης καὶ εἰσελθούσης εἰς αὐτόν. Καὶ φωνὴ 
ἐγένετο ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, λέγουσα' Σύ μου εἶ ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, ἔν σοὶ 
ηὐδόκησα. Καὶ πάλιν: Ἔγω σήμερον γεγέννηκα σε. Καὶ εὐθὺς περιέ- 
λαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα. Ὃ ἰδὼν ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης λέγει αὐτῷ" Σύ τίς εἶ, 
κύριε; Καὶ πάλιν φωνὴ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν᾽ Οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου 
ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, ἐφ᾽ ὃν ηὐδόκησα. Καὶ τότε ὁ Ιωάννης προσπεσὼν αὐτῷ 
ἔλεγε Δέομαι σου, κύριε, σύ με βάπτισον. Ὁ δὲ ἐκώλυεν αὐτῷ, λέγων" 
"Agec, ὄτι οὔτως ἐστί πρέπον πληρωθῆναι πάντα. 

2 J put them in apposition : 

Justin. Kai πῦρ ανήφθη ἐν τῷ "lopddvy.—Dial. cum Tryph. ὃ 88. 
Epiphan. Kai εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς péya.— Heres. 
xxx. § 19. 
Justin. Yiog pov εἶ ov" ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκα oe.—Dial. cum 
Tryph. § 88 and 103. 
Epiphan. Ἔγω σήμερον γεγέννηκα oe.—Heres. xxx. § 18. 
2 Web, 1. 5; vs Ὁ: 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 145 


author is speaking of the calling of priests being mira- 
culous and manifest; and then he cites this call of 
Christ to the priesthood as answering these require- 
ments. 

The order of events is not the same in the Gospel of 
the Twelve and in that of St. Matthew: verses 14 and 
15 of the latter, modified in an important point, come 
in the Ebionite Gospel after verses 16 and 17. 

There is a serious discrepancy between the account of 
the baptism of our Lord in St. Matthew and in St. John. 
In the former Canonical Gospel, the Baptist forbids 
Christ to be baptized by him, saying, “I have need to 
be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?” But 
Jesus bids him: “Suffer it to be so now, for thus it 
becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then Jesus is 
baptized, and the heavens are opened. But in St. John’s 
Gospel, the Baptist says, “I knew him not: but he that 
sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, 
Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and 
remaining upon him, the same is he which baptizeth 
’ with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record, that 
this is the Son of God.”? 

Now the account in the Gospel of the Twelve removes 
this discrepancy. John does not know Jesus till after 
the light and the descent of the dove and the voice, and 
then he asks to be baptized by Jesus. 

It is apparent that the passage in the lost Gospel is 
more correct than that in the Canonical one. In the 
latter there has been an inversion of verses destroying 
the succession of events, and thus producing discrepancy 
with the account in St. John’s Gospel. 

With these passages from the Gospel of the Twelve 
may be compared a curious one from the Testament of 
the Twelve Patriarchs. It occurs in the Testament of 

. 1 John i. 29—34. 

H 


146 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


Levi, and is a prophecy of the Messiah. “The heavens 
shall open for thee, and from above the temple of glory 
the voice of the Father shall dispense sanctification upon 
him, as has been promised unto Abraham, the father of 
Isaac.” : 

The passage quoted by St. Epiphanius is wholly un- 
objectionable doctrinally. It is not so with that quoted 
by St. Jerome; it is of a very different character. It 
exhibits strongly the Gnostic ideas which infected the 
stricter sect of the Ebionites. 

It was precisely on the baptism of the Lord that they 
laid the greatest stress ; and it is in the account of that 
event that we should expect to find the greatest diverg- 
ence between the texts employed by the orthodox and 
the heretical Nazarenes. Before his baptism he was 
nothing. It was then only that the “full fount of the 
Holy Ghost” descended on him, his election to the 
Messiahship was revealed, and divine power was com- 
municated to him to execute the mission entrusted to 
him. A marked distinction was drawn between two 
portions in the life of Jesus—before and after his bap- 
tism. In the first they acknowledged nothing but the 
mere human nature, to the entire exclusion of every- 
thing supernatural ; while the sudden accruing of super- 
natural aid at the baptism marked the moment when he 
became the Messiah. Thus the baptism was the begin- 
ning of their Gospel. 

Before that, he is liable to sin, he suggests that his 
believing himself to be free from sin may have precipi- 
tated him into sin, the sin of ignorance. And “even in 
the prophets, after they had received the unction of the 
Holy Ghost, there was found sinful speech.”1 This quo- 
tation follows, in St. Jerome, immediately after the say- 


1 “Etiam in prophetis quoque, postquam uncti sunt Spiritu sancto, in- 
ventus est sermo peccati.” —Contr. Pelag. iii. 2. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 147 


ing cited above enjoining forgiveness, but it in no way 
dovetails into it; the passage concerning the recommen- 
dation by St. Mary and the brethren that they should 
go up to be baptized of John for the remission of sins, 
comes in the same chapter, and there can be little doubt 
that this reference to the prophets as sinful formed part 
of the answer of the Virgin to Jesus when he spoke of 
his being sinless. 

St. Jerome obtained his copy of the Gospel of the 
Hebrews from Berea in Syria, and not therefore from 
the purest source. Had he copied and translated the 
codex he found in the library of Pamphilus at Cesarea, 
instead of that he procured from Berzea, it is probable 
that he would have found it not to contain the passages 
of Gnostic tendency. 

These interpolations were made in the second cen- 
tury, when Gnostic ideas had begun to affect the 
Kbionités, and break them up into more or less heretical 
sects. 

Their copies of the Gospel of the Hebrews differed, 
- for the Gnostic Ebionites curtailed it in some places, 
and amplified it in others. ᾿ 

In reconstructing the primitive lost Gospel of the 
Nazarenes, it is very necessary to note these Gnostic 
passages, and to withdraw them from the text. We 
shall come to some more of their additions and altera- 
tions presently. It is sufficient for us to note here that 
the heretical Gospel in use among the Gnostic Ebionites 
was based on the orthodox Gospel of the Hebrews. The 
existence of these two versions explains the very differ- 
ent treatment their Gospel meets with at the hands of 
the Fathers of the Church. Some, and these the earliest, 
speak of this Gospel with reverence, and place it almost 
on a line with the Canonical Gospels; others speak of 

H 2 ; 


148 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


it with horror, as an heretical corruption of the Gospel 
of St. Matthew. The former saw the primitive text, the 
latter the curtailed and amplified version in use among 
the heretical Ebionites. 

St. Paul, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, alludes 
to one of the appearances of our Lord after his resurrec- 
tion, of which no mention is made in the Canonical 
Gospels: “ After that, he was seen of James.” But 
according to his account, this appearance took place 
after several other manifestations, viz. after that to 
Cephas, that to the Twelve, and that to five hundred 
brethren at once. But it preceded another appearance 
to “all the apostles.” If we take the first and second to 
have occurred on Easter-day, and the last to have been 
the appearance to them again “after eight days,” when 
St. Thomas was present, then the appearance to St. 
James must have taken place between the “even” of 
Easter-day and Low Sunday. 

Now the Gospel of the Hebrews gives a particular 
account of this visit to James, which however, according 
to this account, took place early on Easter-day, certainly 
before Christ stood in the midst of the apostles in the 
upper room on Easter-evening. 

St. Jerome says, “The Gospel according to the He- 
brews relates that after the resurrection of the Saviour, 
‘The Lord, after he had given the napkin to the servant 
of the priest, went to James, and appeared to him. Now 
James had sworn with an oath that he would not eat 
bread from that hour when he drank the cup of the Lord, 
till he should behold him rising from amidst them that 
sleep. And again, a little after, ‘The Lord said, Bring 
a table and bread’ And then, ‘He took bread and blessed 
and brake, and gave it to James the Just, and said unto 


1 1 Cor. xv. 7. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 149 


him, My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is 

risen from among them that sleep?” 

_ This touching incident is quite in keeping with what 
we know about St. James, the Lord’s brother. 

James the Just, according to Hegesippus, “ neither 
drank wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from . 
animal food ;”” and though the account of Hegesippus 
is manifestly fabulous in some of its details, still there 
is no reason to doubt that James belonged to the ascetic 
school among the Jews, as did the Baptist before him, 
and as did the orthodox Ebionites after him. The oath 
to abstain from food till a certain event was accom- 
plished was not unusual.? 

What is meant by “the Saviour giving the napkin to 
the servant of the priest,” it is impossible to conjecture 
without the context. The napkin was probably that 
which had covered his face in the tomb, but whether the 
context linked this on to the cycle of sacred sindones 
impressed with the portrait of the Saviour’s suffering 

face, cannot be told. The designation of “the Just” as 
applied to James is for the purpose of distinguishing 
him from James the brother of John. He does not bear 
that name in the Canonical Gospels, but the title may 
have been introduced by St. Jerome to avoid confusion, 
or it may have been a marginal gloss to the text. 

The story of this appearance found its way into the 


1 «(Evangelium . . . secundum Hebraos . . . post resurrectionem Sal- 
vatoris refert :—Dominus autem, cum dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis, 
ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non comesturum 
panem ab illa hora, qua biberat calicem Domini, donee videret eum resur- 
gentem a dormientibus.—Rursusque post paululum : Afferte, ait Dominus, 
mensam et panem. Statimgue additur :—Tulit panem et benedixit, ac 
fregit, et dedit Jacobo justo, et dixit ei: Frater mi, comede panem tuum, 
quia resurrexit Filius hominis a dormientibus.’’— Hieron. De viris illus- 
tribus, 6, 2. 


2 Enseb, H, E. lib. 11, ὁ, 28. 3 Acts xxiii, 14. 


150 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


writings of St. Gregory of Tours,' who no doubt drew 
it from St. Jerome; and thence it passed into the 
Legenda Aurea of Jacques de Voragine. 

If the Lord did appear to St. James on Easter-day, as 
related in this lost Gospel, then it may have been in the 
morning, and not after his appearance to the Twelve, or 
on his appearance in the evening he may have singled 
out and addressed James before all the others, as on that — 
day week he addressed St. Thomas. In either case, St. 
Paul’s version would be inaccurate as to the order of 
manifestations. The pseudo-Abdias, not in any way 
trustworthy, thus relates the circumstance: 


“ James the Less among the disciples was an object of 
special attachment to the Saviour, and he was inflamed with 
such zeal for his Master that he would take no meat when 
his Lord was crucified, and would only eat again when he 
should see Christ arisen from the dead ; for he remembered 
that when Christ was alive he had given this precept to him 
and to his brethren. That is why he, with Mary Magdalene 
and Peter, was the first of all to whom Jesus Christ appeared, 
in order to confirm his disciples in the faith ; and that he 
might not suffer him to fast any longer, a piece of an honey- 
comb having been offered him, he invited James to eat 
thereof.” 2 


Another fracement of the lost Gospel of the Hebrews 
also relates to the resurrection: 


1 Hist. Eccl. Francorum, i. 21. 


2 The ‘‘ History of the Apostles’? purports to have been written by 
Abdias B. of Babylon, disciple of the apostles, in Hebrew. It was trans- 
lated into Greek, and thence, it was pretended, into Latin .by Julius 
Africanus. That it was rendered from Greek has been questioned by 
critics. As we have it, it belongs to the ninth century ; but the publica- 
tion of Syriac versions of the Jegends on which the book of Abdias was 
founded, Syriac versions of the fourth century, which were really translated 
from the Greek, show that some Greek originals must have existed at an 
early age which are now lost. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 151 





“And when he had come to | Peter and| those that were 
with Peter, he said wnto them, Take, touch me, and see 
that [ am not a bodeless spirit. And straightway they 
touched him and believed.” 

St. Ignatius, who cites these words, excepting only 
those within brackets, does not say whence he drew 
them; but St. Jerome informs us that they were taken 
from the Gospel ef the Hebrews. At the same time he 
gives the passage with greater fulness than St. Ignatius. 

The account in St. Matthew contains nothing at all 
like this; but St. Luke mentions these circumstances, 
though with considerable differences. The Lord having 
appeared in the midst of his disciples, they imagine that 
they see a spirit. Then he says, “ Why are ye troubled? 
and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my 
hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and 
see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me 
have.” ? 

The narrative in St. Luke’s Gospel is fuller than that 
in the Gospel of the Hebrews, and is not derived from 
᾿ς it. In the Nazarene Gospel, as soon as the apostles 
see and touch, they believe. But in the Canonical Gospel 
of St. Luke, they are not convinced till they see Christ 
eat. 

Justin Martyr cites a passage now found in the 
‘Canonical Gospel of St. John, but not exactly as there, 
evidently therefore obtaining it from an independent 
source, and that source was the Gospel of the Twelve, 


1 Kai Ore πρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πέτρον ἦλθεν ἔφη αὐτοῖς" λάβετε, ψηλαφή- 
GATE με, καὶ ἴδετε, OTL οὐκ εἰμί δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον. Καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτοῦ 
ἥψαντο καί ἐπιστεύσαν. ---Ἰοποῦ. Ἐρ. δα Smyrn. 6. 3. St. Jerome also: “Et 
quando venit ad Petrum et ad eos qui cum Petro erant, dixit eis : Ecce 
palpate me et videte quia non sum deemonium incorporale. Et statim 
tetigerunt eum et crediderunt.”—De Script. Eccl. 16. Eusebius quotes 
the passage after Ignatius. Hist. Hecl. iii. 37. 


2 Luke xxiv. 37—-39, 


ΤΣ LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





the only one with which he was acquainted, the only one 
then acknowledged as Canonical in the Nazarene Church. 

The passage is, “ Christ has said, Except ye be regene- 
rate, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” * 

In St. John’s Gospel the parallel passage is couched 
in the third person: “Except a man be born again, he 
cannot see the kingdom of God.”? The difference stands 
out more clearly in the Greek than in English. 

We may conjecture that the primitive Gospel of the 
Hebrews contained an account of the interview of Nico- 
demus with our Lord. When we come to consider the 
Gospel used by the author of the Clementine Homilies 
and Recognitions, we shall find that the instruction on 
new birth made to Nicodemus was familiar to him, but 
not exactly in the form in which it is recorded by St. 
John. 

St. Jerome informs us that the lost Gospel we are 
considering did not relate that the veil of the Temple 
was rent in twain when Jesus gave up the ghost, but 
that the lintel stone, a huge stone, fell down.’ 

That this tradition may be true is not unlikely. The 
rocks were rent, and the earth quaked, and it is probable 
enough that the Temple was so shaken that the great 
lintel stone fell. 

St. Epiphanius gives us another fragment : 

“TI am come to abolish the sacrifices: af ye cease not 
from sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from 
weighing wpon you.” * 

1 Kai γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς εἶπεν ἂν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, ob μὴ εἰσελθῆτε 
εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.---Ἰ Apolog. § 61. Oper. p. 94. 

3 Ἐὰν μήτις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ 
@cov.—John iii. 3. ; 

3 “Tn Evangelio . . . legimus non velum templi scissum, sed super- 
liminare templi mirz magnitudinis corruisse.”—Epist. 120, Ad Helibiam. 


4 Ἕλθον καταλῦσαι τὰς θυσίας, καὶ ἐαν μή παύσασθε Tov θυεῖν, ov 
παύσεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἡ Opyn.—EHpiphan. Heres. xxx. ὃ 16. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 153 





In the Clementine Recognitions, a work issuing from 
the Ebionite anti-Gnostic school, we find that the aboli- 
tion of the sacrifices was strongly insisted on. The abo- 
mination of idolatry is first exposed, and the strong hold 
that Egyptian idolatry had upon the Israelites is pointed 
out; then we are told Moses received the Law, and, in 
consideration of the prejudices of the people, tolerated 
sacrifice : 


“When Moses perceived that the vice of sacrificing to idols 
had been deeply ingrained into the people from their associa- 
tion with the Egyptians, and that the root of this evil could 
not be extracted from them, he allowed them to sacrifice in- 
deed, but permitted it to be done only to God, that by any 
means he might cut off one half of the deeply ingrained evil, 
leaving the other half to be corrected by another, and at a 
future time ; by him, namely, concerning whom he said him- 
self, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise unto you, 
whom ye shall hear, even as myself, according to all things 
which he shall say to you. Whosoever shall not hear that 
prophet, his soul shall be cut off from his people.” 1 


In another place the Jewish sacrifices are spoken of 
as sin.” 

This hostility to the Jewish sacrificial system by 
Ebionites who observed all the other Mosaic institu- 
tions was due to their having sprung out of the old sect 
of the Essenes, who held the sacrifices in the same 
abhorrence.? 

That our Lord may have spoken against the sacrifices 
is possible enough. The passage may have stood thus: 
“Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the 
Prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil; never- 
theless, I tell you the truth, I am come to destroy the 


1 Recog. i. 36. 2 Recog. 1. 54. 
3 Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 1,5; Philo Judeus. Περὶ rod πάντα σπουδαῖον 
εἶναι ἐλεύθερον. See what has been said on this subject already, p. 16. 


[9] 


H o 


154 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


sacrifices. But be ye approved money-changers, choose 
that which is good metal, reject that which is bad.” 

It is probable that in the original Hebrew Gospel 
there was some such passage, for St. Paul, or whoever 
was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, apparently 
alludes to it twice. He says, “When he cometh into 
the world he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst 
not, but a body hast thou prepared me.”! The plain 
meaning of which is, not that David had used those 
words centuries before, in prophecy, but that Jesus had 
used them himself when he came into the world. If 
the writer of the Epistle did quote a passage from the 
Hebrew Gospel, it will have been the second from the 
same source. 

In the Ebionite Gospel, “ by a criminal fraud,” says 
St. Epiphanius, a protestation has been placed in the 
mouth of the Lord against the Paschal Sacrifice of the 
Lamb, by changing a positive phrase into a negative 
one. 

When the disciples ask Jesus where they shall pre- - 
pare the Passover, he is made to reply, not, as in St. Luke, 
that with desire he had desired to eat this Passover, but, 
“ Have I then any desire to eat the flesh of the Paschal 
Lamb with you 2 3 

The purpose of this interpolation of two words is 
clear. The Samaritan Ebionites, like the Essenes, did 
not touch meat, regarding all animal food with the 
greatest repugnance.? By the addition of two words 
they were able to convert the saying of our Lord into a 
sanction of their superstition. But this saying of Jesus 


1 Heb. τ & 

2 (Mi) ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα (κρέας) τοῦτο τό πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν; 
Epiph. Heres. xxx. 22. The words added to those in St. Luke are placed 
in brackets ; ef. Luke xxii. 15. 


3 Epiphan, Heres. xxx. 15. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 155 


is now found only in St. Luke’s Gospel. It must have 
stood originally without the Μὴ and the κρέας in the 
Gospel of the Twelve. 

Another of their alterations of the Gospel was to the 
same intent. Instead of making St. John the Baptist 
eat locusts and wild honey, they gave him for his nou- 
rishment wild honey only, ἐγχρίδας, instead of ἀχρίδας 
and pedi ἄγριον. 

The passage in which this curious change was made 
is remarkable. It served as the introduction to the 
Gospel in use among the Gnostic Ebionites. 

“A certain man, named Jesus, being about thirty years 
of age, hath chosen us; and having come to Capernawn, 
he entered into the house of Simon, whose surname was 
Peter, and he said unto him, As I passed by the Sea of 
Tiberias, I chose John and James, the sons of Zebedee, 
Simon and Andrew, Thaddeus, Simon Zelotes and Judas 
Iscariot ; and thee, Matthew, when thou wast sitting at 
thy tax-gatherer’s table, then I called thee, and thou didst © 
follow me. And you do I choose to be my twelve apostles 
to bear witness unto Israel. 

“ John baptized ; and the Pharisees came to him, and 
they were baptized of him, and all Jerusalem also. He 
had a garment of camels’ hair, and a leathern girdle 
about his loins, and his meat was wild honey, and the 
taste thereof was as manna, and as a cake of oil.” 

Apparently after this announcement of his choice of 
the apostles there followed something analogous to the 
preface in St. Luke’s Gospel, to the effect that these 
apostles, having assembled together, had taken in hand 
to write down those things that they remembered con- 
cerning Christ and his teaching. And it was on this 
account that the Gospel obtained the name of the 
“Recollections of the Apostles,” or the “Gospel of the 
Twelve.” 


156 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


The special notice taken of St. Matthew, who is 
singled out from the others in this address, is significant 
of the relation supposed to exist between the Gospel and 
the converted publican. If we had the complete intro- 
duction, we should probably find that in it he was said 
to have been the scribe who wrote down the apostolic 
recollections. 


2. Doubtful Fragments. 


THERE are a few fragments preserved by early eccle- 
siastical writers which we cannot say for certain be- 
longed to the Gospel of the Hebrews, but which there 
is good reason to believe formed a part of it. 

Origen, in his Commentary on St. Matthew, quotes 
a saying of our Lord which is not to be found in the 
Canonical Gospels. Origen, we know, was acquainted 
with, and quoted respectfully, the Gospel of the Hebrews. 
It is therefore probable that this quotation is taken from 
it: “Jesus said, For the sake of the weak I became weak, 
Jor the sake of the hungry I hungered, for the sake of the 
thirsty I thirsted.” + 

That this passage, full of beauty, occurred after the 
words, “This kind goeth not out but by prayer and 
fasting,” in commenting on which Origen quotes it, is 
probable. It is noteworthy that it is quoted in comment 
on St. Matthew’s Gospel, the one to which the lost 
Gospel bore the closest resemblance, and one which 
Origen would probably consult whilst compiling his 
Commentary on St. Matthew.” 

1 Kai Ἰησοῦς γοῦν φησὶ, Διὰ τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας ἠσθένουν, Kai διὰ τοὺς 
πεινῶντας ἐπείνων, καὶ διὰ τοὺς δυψῶντας ἐδίψων. In Matt. xvii. 21. 

2 Perhaps this passage was in the mind of St. Paul when he wrote of 


himself, ‘‘ To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak.” 
1 Cor. ix. 22. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 157 


The saying is so beautiful, and so truly describes the 
love of our Lord, that we must wish to believe it comes 
to us on such high authority as the Gospel of the Twelve. 

Another saying of Christ is quoted both by Clement 
of Alexandria and by Origen, without saying whence 
they drew it, but by both as undoubted sayings of the 
Saviour. It ran: 

“Seek those things that are great, and little things will 
be added to you.” “And seek ye heavenly things, and the 
things of this world will be added to you.” 

It will be seen, the form as given by St. Clement is 
better and simpler than that given by Origen. It is 
probable, however, that they both formed members of 
the same saying, following the usual Hebrew arrange- 
ment of repeating a maxim, giving it a slightly different 
turn or a wider expansion. In two passages in other 
places Origen makes allusion to this saying without 
quoting it directly.” 

In the Acts of the Apostles, St. Luke puts into the 
mouth of St. Paul a saying of Christ, which is not given 
by any evangelist, in these words: “Remember the 
words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, J¢ is more blessed 
to gwe than to receive.’* It is curious that this saying 
should not have been inserted by St. Luke in his Gospel. 
Whether this saying found its way into the Hebrew 
Gospel it is impossible to tell. 

In the Epistle of St. Barnabas another utterance of 
Christ is given. This Epistle is so distinctly of a 
Judaizing character, so manifestly belongs to the Naza- 


1 Αἰτεῖσθε yao, φησί, τὰ μεγάλα, Kai τὰ μικρὰ ὑμῖν προστεθήσαται. 
Clemens Alex. Stromate, i. Καὶ αἰτεῖτε τὰ ἐπουράνια, καὶ τὰ ἐπίγεια 
ὑμῖν mpooreOnoerar.—Origen, De Orat. 2 and 43. 

2 Cont. Cels. vii. and De Orat. 53. 


* Acts xx. 35. It is also quoted as a saying of our Lord in the Apos- 
tolic Constitutions, iv. 3. 


158 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


rene school, that such a reference in it makes it more 
than probable that it was taken from the Gospel re- 
ceived as Canonical among the Nazarenes. The saying 
of St. Barnabas is, “ All the time of our life and of our 
faith will not profit us, if we have not in abhorrence 
the evil one and future temptation, even as the Son of 
God said, Resist all iniquity and hold ἐξ in abhorrence.”} 
Another saying in the Epistle of St. Barnabas is, “ They 
who would see me, and attain to my kingdom, must possess 
me through afflictions and sufferings.” " 

In the second Epistle of St. Clement of Rome to the 
Corinthians occurs a very striking passage: “ Wherefore 
to us doing such things the Lord said, Jf ye were with 
me, gathered together in my bosom, and did not keep my 
commandments, I would cast you out, and say unto you, 
Depart from me, I know not whence ye are, ye workers of 
iniquity.” ὃ 

We can well understand this occurring in an anti- 
Pauline Gospel. 

Again. “The Lord said, be ye as lambs in the midst 
of wolves. Peter answered and said unto him, But what 
if the wolves shall rend the lambs? Jesus said unto Peter, 
The lambs fear not the wolves after their death ; and ye 
also, do not ye fear them that kill you, and after that 
have nothing that they can do to you, but fear rather him 
who, after ye are dead, has power to cast your soul and 
body into hell fire.” * 


1 Ep. 4. 
᾿ , ~ ‘ ~ 

2 Οὕτοι, φησὶν, δι θέλοντές με ἰδεῖν, καὶ ἅψασθαί pov τῆς βασιλείας, ὀ- 
φείλουσι θλιβέντες καὶ παθόντες λαβεῖν pe.—Ep. 7. 

8 Διὰ τοῦτο TavTa ἡμῶν πρασσόντων, εἶπεν ὁ κύριος, "Edy ἦτε μετ᾽ 
ἐμου συνηγμένοι ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ μου, καὶ μὴ ποιεῖτε τὰς ἐντολάς μου, ἀπο- 
βαλῶ ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐρῶ ὑμῖν, ὑπάγετε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, οὐκ ὄιδα ὑμᾶς, ἐργάται ἀνομίας. 
2 Ep. ad Corinth. 4. 

4 Λέγει γὰρ ὁ κύριος, ἔσεσθε we ἀρνία ἐν μέσῳ λύκων. ᾿Αποκριθεὶς δὲ 
ὁ Πέτρος ἀυτῷ λέγει, Ἔαν ὀυν διασπαράξωσιν ot λύκοι Ta ἀρνία; “Evrev 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 159 


This is clearly another version of the passage, Matt. 
x. 16—26. In one particular it is fuller than in the 
Canonical Gospel; it introduces St. Peter as speaking 
and drawing forth the exhortation not to fear those 
who kill the body only. But it is without the long 
exhortation contained in the 17—27th verses of St. 
Matthew. 

Another saying from the same source is, “ This, there- 
fore, the Lord said, Keep the flesh chaste and the seal 
undefiled, and ye shall receive eternal life.”1 The seal is 
the unction of confirmation completing baptism, and in 
the primitive Church united with it. It is the σφραγίς 
so often spoken of in the Epistles of St. Paul.” 

Justin Martyr contributes another saying. We have 
already seen that in all likelihood he quoted from the 
Gospel of the Hebrews, or the Recollections of the 
Twelve, as he called it. He says, “On this account 
also our Lord Jesus Christ said, In those things in which 
1 shall overtake you, in those things will I judge you.” ὃ 
Clement of Alexandria makes the same quotation, 
slightly varying the words. Justin and Clement appa- 
rently both translated from the original Hebrew, but 
did not give exactly the same rendering of words, though 
they gave the same sense. 

Clement gives us another saying, but does not say 


ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ Πέτρῳ. Μὴ φοβείσθωσαν τὰ ἀρνία τοὺς λύκους μετὰ TO 
ἀποθανεῖν ἀυτά. Καὶ ὑμεῖς μὴ φοβεῖσθε τοὺς ἀποκτέινοντας ὑμᾶς, καὶ 
μηδὲν ὑμῖν δυναμένους ποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ φοβεῖσθε τὸν μετὰ το ἀποθανεῖν 
ὑμας ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος τοῦ βαλεῖν εἰς γέενναν πυρὸς. 
Ibid. 5. 

1*Aoa οὖν τοῦτο λέγει: Τηρήσατε τὴν σάρκα ἁγνὴν καί τὴν σφραγίδα 
ἄσπιλον, ἵνα τὴν αἰώνιον ξωὴν arrohaBnre.—Lbid. 8, 

* Rom.iv. 1s ΘΟΕ 1 2.9 phi, 13,iv; 30:7, Δ Tim.) 11.0.10] 

3 Ἔν dic ἀν ὑμᾶς καταλάβω, ἐν τούτοις καὶ Kowes.—Just. Mart. in 
Dialog. ὁ. Trypho. Ἐφ᾽ duc γὰρ ἕυρω ἡμᾶς, φησὶν, ἐπι τούτοις καὶ κρινῶ. 
Clem. Alex. Quis dives salv. 40. 


100 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





from what Gospel he drew it. “The Lord commanded 
in a certain Gospel, Ly secret is for me and for the chil- 
dren of my house.” ἢ 


3. The Origin of the Gospel of the Hebrews, 


WE come now to a question delicate, and difficult to 
answer—the Origin of the Gospel of the Hebrews; 
delicate, because it involves another, the origin of the 
Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark; difficult, because 
of the nature of the evidence on which we shall have to 
form our opinion. 

Because the Gospel of the Hebrews is not preserved, 
is not in the Canon, it does not follow that its value 
was slight, its accuracy doubtful. Its disappearance is 
due partly to the fact of its having been written in 
Aramaic, but chiefly to that of its having been in use 
-by an Aramaic-speaking community which assumed 
first a schismatical, then a heretical position, so that the 
disfavour which fell on the Nazarene body enveloped 
and doomed its Gospel as well. 

The four Canonical Gospels owe their preservation to 
their having been in use among those Christian com- 
munities which coalesced under the moulding hands of 
St.John. Those parties which were reluctant to abandon 
their peculiar features were looked upon with coldness, 
then aversion, lastly abhorrence. They became more 
and more isolated, eccentric, prejudiced, impracticable. 
Whilst the Church asserted her catholicity, organized 
her constitution, established her canon, formulated her 
creed, adapted herself to the flux of ideas, these narrow 


1 Μυστήριον ἐμὸν ἐμοὶ Kai τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ οἴκου pov.—Clem. Alex. 
Strom. v. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 1601 


sects spent their petty lives in accentuating their pecu- 
liarities till they grew into monstrosities; and when 
they fell and disappeared, there fell and disappeared 
with them those precious records of the Saviour’s words 
and works which they had preserved. 

The Hebrew Gospel was closely related to the Gospel 
of St. Matthew; that we know from the testimony of 
St. Jerome, who saw, copied and translated it. That 
it was not identical with the Canonical first Gospel is 
also certain. Sufficient fragments have been preserved 
to show that in many points it was fuller, in some less 
complete, than the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew. The 
two Gospels were twin sisters speaking different tongues. 
Was the Greek of the first Gospel acquired, or was it 
original? This is a point deserving of investigation 
before we fix the origin and determine the construction 
of the Hebrew Gospel. 

According to a fragment of a lost work by Papias, 
written about the middle of the second century, under 
the title of “Commentary on the Sayings of the Lord,” ? 
- the apostle Matthew was the author of a collection of 
the “sayings,” λόγια, of our blessed Lord. The passage . 
has been already given, but it is necessary to quote it 
again here: “ Matthew wrote in the Hebrew dialect the 
sayings, and every one interpreted them as best he was 
able.”2 These “logia” could only be, according to the 
signification of the word (Rom. 11. 2; Heb. v. 12; 
Pet. iv. 11; Acts vil. 38), a collection of the sayings of 
the Saviour that were regarded as oracular, as “the 
words of God.” That they were the words of Jesus, 
follows from the title given by Papias to his com- 
mentary, Λόγια κυριακὰ. 


1 Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεις. 


2 Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνεγράψατο, ἡρμήνευσε 
δὲ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος. 


102 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


This brief notice is sufficient to show that Matthew’s 
collection was not the Gospel as it now stands. It was 
no collection of the acts, no biography, of the Saviour ; 
it was solely a collection of his discourses. 

This is made clearer by what Papias says in the same 
work on St. Mark. He relates that the latter wrote not 
only what Jesus had said, but also what he did ;} 
whereas St. Matthew wrote only what had been said.? 

The work of Matthew, therefore, contained no doings, 
πραχθέντα, but only sayings, λεχθέντα, which were, ac- 
cording to Papias, written in Hebrew, 1.6. the vernacular 
Aramaic, and which were translated into Greek by every 
one as best he was able. 

This notice of Papias is very ancient. The Bishop of 
Hierapolis is called by Irenzus “a very old man,” and 
by the same writer is said to have been “a friend 
of Polycarp,” and “one who had heard John.”* That 
this John was the apostle is not certain. It was ques- 
tioned by Eusebius in his mention of the Procemium of 
Papias. John the priest and John the apostle were 
both at Ephesus, and both lived there at the close of 
the first century. Some have thought the Apocalypse 
to have been the work of the priest John, and not of 
the apostle. Others have supposed that there was only 
one John. However this may be, it is certain that 
Papias lived at a time when it was possible to obtain 
correct information relating to the origin of the sacred 
books in use among the Christians. 

According to the Procemium of Papias, which Eusebius 
has preserved, the Bishop of Hierapolis had obtained 
his knowledge, not directly from the apostles, nor from 


1 τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα; and οὐ ποιούμενος 
σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν λογίων. 
2 A ‘ , 3 > ~ > , 
συνεγράψατο τὰ λόγια. ἀρχαῖος ἀνήρ. 
4 Tren. 6, Heres. v. 33, 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 163 


the apostle John, but from the mouths of men who 
had companied with old priests and disciples of the 
apostles, and who had related to him what Andrew, 
Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John and other disciples 
of the Lord had said (εἶπεν. Besides the testimony of 
these priests, Papias appealed further to the evidence of 
Aristion and the priest John, disciples of the Lord,’ still 
alive and bearing testimony when he wrote. “ And,” 
says Papias, “I do not think that I derived so much 
benefit from books as from the living voice of those that 
are still surviving.” 2 

Papias, therefore, had his information about the 
apostles second-hand, from those “who followed them 
about.” Nevertheless, his evidence is quite trustworthy. 
He takes pains to inform us that he used great pre- 
caution to obtain the truth about every particular he 
stated, and the means of obtaining the truth were at his 
disposal. That Papias was a man “of a limited com- 
prehension”? does not affect the trustworthiness of his 
. statement. Eusebius thus designates him because he 
believed in the Millennium; but so did most of the 
Christians of the first age, as well as in the immediate 
second coming of Christ, till undeceived by events. 

The statement of Papias does not justify us in sup- 
posing that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew, but 
only a collection of the logia, the sayings of Jesus. 
Eusebius did not mistake the Sayings for the Gospel, 
for he speaks separately of the Hebrew Gospel,* without 
connecting it in any way with the testimony of Papias. 

According to Eusebius, Papias wrote his Commentary 
in five books.®? It is not improbable, therefore, that the 


1 Scarcely actual disciples and eye-witnesses. 

2 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. 3 σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν. 
4 kaY Ἑβραιοὺς εὐαγγέλιον. H. E. iii. 25, 27, 89; iv. 22. 

> συγγράμματα πέντε. 


164 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





“ Logia” were broken into five parts or grouped in five 
discourses, and that he wrote an explanation of each 
discourse in a separate book or chapter. 

The statement of Papias, if it does not refer to the 
Gospel of St. Matthew as it now stands, does refer 
to one of the constituent parts of that Gospel, and 
does explain much that would be otherwise inex- 
plicable. 

1. St. Matthew’s Gospel differs from St. Mark’s in 
that it contains long discourses, sayings and parables, 
which are wanting or only given in a brief form in 
the second Canonical Gospel. It is therefore probable 
that in its. composition were used the “ Logia of the 
Lord,” written by Matthew. 

2. If the collection of “Sayings of the Lord” con- 
sisted, as has been suggested, of five parts, then we find 
traces in the Canonical Matthew of five groups of dis- 
courses, concluded by the same formulary: “And it 
came to pass when Jesus had ended these sayings” 
(τοὺς λόγους τούτους), or “parables,” vu. 28, ΧΙ. 1, 
ΧΙ 53, xix. 1, xxvi. 1. It is not, however, possible 
to restore all the “logia” to their primitive positions, 
for they have been dispersed through the Canonical 
Gospel, and arranged in connection with the events 
which called them forth. In the “Sayings of the Lord” 
of Matthew, these events were not narrated; but all the 
sayings were placed together, like the proverbs in the 
book of Solomon. 

3. The “ Logia” of the Lord were written by Matthew 
in Hebrew, 16. in the vernacular Aramaic. If they 
have formed the groundwork, or a composite part of the 
Canonical Gospel, we are likely to detect in the Greek 
some traces of their origin. And this, in fact, we are 
able to do, 

a. In the first place, we have the introduction of 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 165 


Aramaic words, as Raka (v. 22),) Mammon (vi. 22),? 
Gehenna (v. 22),2 Amen (v. 18).4 Many others might 
be cited, but these will suffice. 

B. Next, we have the use of illustrations which are 
only comprehensible by Hebrews, as “ One jot and one 
tittle shall in no wise fall.” The Ἰῶτα of the Greek 
text is the Aramaic Jod (v. 18); but the “one tittle” is 
more remarkable. In the Greek it is “one horn,” or 
“stroke.”° The idea is taken from the Aramaic ortho- 
graphy. <A stroke distinguishes one consonant from 
another, as m and m7 from 7. With this the Greeks had 
nothing that corresponded. 

y. We find Hebraisms in great number in the dis- 
courses of our Lord given by St. Matthew.® 

5. We find mistranslations. The Greek Canonical 
text gives a wrong meaning, or no meaning at all, 
through misunderstanding of the Aramaic. By restora- 
tion of the Aramaic text we can rectify the translation. 
Thus : | 

Matt. vu. 6, “Give not that which is holy to dogs, 
“neither cast ye your pearls before swine.” The word 
“holy,” τὸ ἅγιον, is a misinterpretation of the Aramaic 
Sw, a gold jewel for the ear, head or neck.’ The 
translator mistook the word for SW5)p, or SWAP without 
1, “the holy.” The sentence in the original therefore 


1 Aram. SP) 2 Aram. ΝΘ 
3 Aram. ὩΩΓΤᾺ 4 Aram. JN 
ἘΠῊΝ τ᾿ 

5 μιά κεραὶα, Aram. ΨῚ or YP. 

8 vi. 7, βαττολογεῖν ; v. 5, κληρονομεῖν τὴν γῆν ; v. 2, dyvolyew τὸ 
στόμα ; Vv. 3, πτωχοί ; τ. 9, υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ; Vv. 12, μισθὸς πολύς; Vv. 39, 
τῷ πονηρῷ; Vi. 25 ; x. 28, 89, ψυχὴ, for life; vi. 22, 28, ἁπλοῦς and 
πονηρὸς, sound and sick ; vi. 11, ἄρτος, for general food ; the ‘‘ birds of 


heaven,”’ in vi. 25, ἄς. το. 


7 Targum, Gen. xxiv. 22, 47; Job xlii. 11; Exod. xxxii. 2; Judges 
viii, 24; Prov. xi. 22, xxv. 12; Hos. ii. 13. 


100 _ LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


ran, “Give not a gold jewel to dogs, neither cast pearls 
before swine.” 

Matt. v. 37, “Let your conversation be Yea, yea, Nay, 
nay.” This is meaningless. But if we restore the con- 
struction in Aramaic we have ΝΡ 382, ἹΠῚΗ 559 ΣΝ 
and the meaning is, “In your conversation let your yea 
be yea, and your nay be nay.” The yea, yea, and nay, 
nay, in the Hebrew come together, and this misled the 
translator. St. James quotes the saying rightly (v. 12), 
“Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; lest ye fall 
into condemnation.” It isa form of a Rabbinic maxim, 
“The yea of the righteous is yea, and their nay is nay.” 
It is an injunction to speak the truth. 

We have therefore good grounds for our conjecture 
that St. Matthew’s genuine “Sayings of the Lord ” form 
a part of the Canonical Gospel. 

We have next to consider, Whence came the rest of 
the material, the record of the “doings of the Lord,” 
which the compiler interwove with the “Sayings”? ’ 

We have tolerably convincing evidence that the com- 
piler placed under contribution both Aramaic and Greek 
collections. 

For the citations from the Old Testament are not 
taken exclusively from the Hebrew Scriptures, nor from 
the Greek translation of the Seventy; but some are 
taken from the Greek translation, and some are taken 
from the Hebrew, or from a Syro-Chaldzan Targum or 
Paraphrase, probably in use at the time. 

Matt. i. 23, “ A virgin shall be with child, and shall 
bring forth a son.” This is quoted as a prophecy of the 
miraculous conception. But it is only a prophecy in the 
version of the LXX., which renders the Hebrew word 
παρθένος, “virgin.” The Hebrew word does not mean 
virgin exclusively, but “a young woman.” We may 
therefore conclude that verses 22, 23, were additions by 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 167 





the Greek compiler of the Gospel, unacquainted with 
the original Hebrew text. 

Matt. 1. 15, “Out of Egypt have I called my son.” 
This is quoted literally from the Hebrew text. That of 
the LXX. has, “Out of Egypt have I called my chil- 
dren,” τὰ τέκνα. This made the saying of Hosea no 
prophecy of our Lord ; consequently he who inserted this 
reference can have known only the Hebrew text, and 
not the Greek version. But in ii. 18, the compiler fol- 
lows the LXX. And again, ii. 23, “ He shall be called 
a Nazarene,” Ναζωραῖος. The Hebrew is 732, of which 
Ναζωραῖος is no translation. The LXX. have Natipaios. 
The compiler was caught by the similarity of sounds. 

Matt. 11. 3. Here the construction of the LXX. is 
followed, which unites “in the wilderness” with “the 
voice of one crying.” The Hebrew was therefore not 
known by the compiler. 

Matt. iv. 15. Here the LXX. is not followed, for the 
word γῆ is used in place of χώα. The quotation is not, 

moreover, taken exactly from Isaiah, but apparently 
from a Targum. | 

Matt. viii. 17. This quotation is nearer the original 
Hebrew than the rendering of the LXX. 

Matt. xii. 18—21. In this citation we have an incor- 
rect rendering of the Hebrew in7in’, “at his teaching,” 
made by the LXX. “in his name,” adopted without 
hesitation by the compiler. He also accepts the erro- 
neous rendering of “islands,” made “nation,” “ Gen- 
tiles,” by the LXX. 

But, on the other hand, “till he send forth judgment 
unto victory,” is taken from neither the original Hebrew 
nor from the LXX., and is probably derived from a 
Targum. 

Thus in this passage we have apparently a combina- 


108 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





tion of two somewhat similar accounts—the one in 
Greek, the other in Aramaic. 

Matt. xii. 35. This also is a compound text. The 
first half is from the LXX., but the second member is 
from a Hebrew Targum. 

Matt. xxvu. 3. In the Hebrew, the field is not a 
“ potter’s,” nor is it in the LXX., who use χωνευτήριον, 
“the smelting-furnace.” The word in the Hebrew sig- 
nifies “treasury.” The composer of the Gospel there- 
fore must have quoted from a Targum, and been igno- 
rant both of the genuine Hebrew Scriptures and of the 
Greek translation of the Seventy. 

These instances are enough to show that the material 
used for the compilation of the first Canonical Gospel 
was very various; that the author had at his disposal 
matter in both Aramaic and Greek. 

We shall find, on looking further, that he inserted 
two narratives of the same event in his Gospel in dif- 
ferent places, if they differed slightly from one another, 
when coming to him from different sources. 

The following are parallel passages : 


ix. 35 And Jesus went 
about all the cities and vil- 


iv. 23 And Jesus went 
about all Galilee, teaching in 


their synagogues, and preach- 
ing the gospel of the king- 
dom, and healing all manner 
of sickness and all manner of 
disease among the people. 


y. 29 And if thy right eye 
offend thee, pluck it out, and 
cast it from thee: for it is 
profitable for thee that one of 
thy members should perish, 


lages, teaching in their syna- 
gogues, and preaching the 
gospel of the kingdom, and 
healing every sickness and 
every disease among the 
people. 

xvii. 9 And if thine eye 
offend thee, pluck it out, and 
cast it from thee: it is better 
for thee to enter into life with 
one eye, rather than having 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 


and not that thy whole body 
should be cast into hell. 

30 And if thy right hand 
offend thee, cut it off, and 
east it from thee: for it is 
profitable for thee that one of 
thy members should perish, 
and not that thy whole body 
should be cast into hell. 


32 But I say unto you, 
That whosoever shall put away 
his wife, saving for the cause 
of fornication, causeth her to 


commit adultery: and whoso- 


ever shall marry her that is 
divorced committeth adultery. 

vi. 14 For if ye forgive 

men their trespasses, your 
heavenly Father will also for- 
give you: 
15 But if ye forgive not 
men their trespasses, neither 
will your Father forgive your 
trespasses. 

vii. 16 Ye shall know them 
by their fruits. Do men 
gather grapes of thorns, or 
figs of thistles ? 

17 Even so every good tree 
bringeth forth good fruit; but 
a corrupt tree bringeth forth 
evil fruit. 

18 A good tree cannot bring 
forth evil fruit, neither can a 
corrupt tree bring forth good 
fruit. 


169 


two eyes to be cast into hell 
fire. 

8 Wherefore if thy hand or 
thy foot offend thee, cut them 
off, and cast them from thee: 
it is better for thee to enter in- 
to life halt or maimed, rather 
than having two hands or two 
feet to be cast into everlasting 
fire. 

xix. 9 And I say unto you, 
Whosoever shall put away his 
wife, except it be for fornica- 
tion, and shall marry another, 
committethadultery : and who- 
so marrieth her which is put 
away doth commit adultery. 

xviii. 35 So likewise shall 
my heavenly Father do also 
unto you, if ye from your 
hearts forgive not every one 
his brother their trespasses. 


xii. 33 Either make the tree 
good, and his fruit good; or 
else make the tree corrupt, and 
his fruit corrupt: for the tree 
is known by his fruit. 


170 


ix. 13 But go ye and learn 
what that meaneth, I will 
have mercy, and not sacrifice. 

ix. 34 But the Pharisees 
said, He casteth out devils 
through the prince of the 
devils. 


x. 15 Verily I say unto 
you, It shall be more tolerable 
for the land of Sodom and 
Gomorrha in the day of judg- 
ment, than for that city. 

17 But beware of men: for 
they will deliver you up to 
the councils, and they will 
scourge you in their syna- 
ZOSuES ; 

22 And ye shall be hated 
of all men for my name’s sake. 

xii. 39 But he answered and 
said unto them, An evil and 
adulterous generation seeketh 
after a sign; and there shall 
no sign be given to it, but the 
sien of the prophet Jonas. 

xiii. 12 For whosoeverhath, 
to him shall be given, and he 
shall have more abundance : 
but whosoever hath not, from 
him shall be taken away even 
that he hath. 

xiv. 5 And when he would 
have put him to death, he 
feared the multitude, because 
they counted him as a pro- 
phet. 


LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


xii. 7 But if ye had known 
what this meaneth, I will 
have mercy, and not sacrifice. 

xii. 24 But when the Phari- 
sees heard it, they said, "This 
fellow doth not cast out devils, 
but by Beelzebub the prince 
of the devils. 

xi. 24. But I say unto you, 
That it shall be more toler- 
able for the land of Sodom in 
the day of judgment, than for 
thee. 

xxiv. 9 Then shall they 
deliver you up to be afflicted, 
and shall kill you: and ye 
shall be hated of all nations 
for my name’s sake. 


xvi. 4 A wicked and adul- 
terous generation seeketh after 
a sign; and there shall no sign 
be given unto it, but the sign 
of the prophet Jonas. 


xxv. 29 For unto every one 
that hath shall be given, and 
he shall have abundance: but 
from him that hath not shall 
be taken away even that which 
he hath. 

xxi. 26 But if we shall say, 
Of men; we fear the people; 
for all hold John as a pro- 
phet. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 


171 





xvi. 19 And I will give 
unto thee the keys of the 
kingdom of heaven: and what- 
soever thou shalt bind onearth 
shall be bound in heaven: and 
whatsoever thou shalt loose 
on earth shall be loosed in 
heaven. 

xvi. 20 And Jesus said 
unto them, Because of your 
unbelief: for verily I say un- 
to you, If ye have faith as a 
grain of mustard seed, ye shall 
say unto this mountain, Re- 
move hence to yonder place ; 
and it shall remove ; and no- 
thing shall be impossible unto 
you. 

xxiv. 11 And many false 
prophets shall rise, and shall 
deceive many. 


xxiv. 23 Then if any man 
shall say unto you, Lo, here 
is Christ, or there; believe it 
not. 


xvii. 18 Verily I say unto 
you, Whatsoever ye shall bind 
on earth shall be bound in 
heaven: and whatsoever ye 
shall loose on earth shall be 
loosed in heaven. 


xxi. 21 Jesus answered and 
said unto them, Verily I say 
unto you, If ye have faith, 
and doubt not, ye shall not 
only do this which is done to 
the fig tree, but also if ye shall 
say unto this mountain, Be 
thou removed, and be thou 
cast into the sea; it shall be 
done. 

xxiv. 24 For there shall 
arise false Christs, and false 
prophets, and shall shew great 
signs and wonders : insomuch 
that, if it were possible, they 
shall deceive the very elect. 

xxiv. 26 Wherefore if they 
shall say unto you, Behold, 
he is in the desert; go not 
forth : behold, he is in the se- 
cret chambers; believe it not. 


The existence in the first Canonical Gospel of these 
duplicate passages proves that the editor of it in its pre- 
sent form made use of materials from different sources, 


which he worked together into a complete whole. 


And 


these duplicate passages are the more remarkable, be- 
cause, where his memory does not fail him, he takes 


pains to avoid repetition. 


IZ 


172: LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


It would seem therefore plain that the compiler of St. 
Matthew’s Gospel made use of, first, a Collection of the 
Sayings of the Lord, of undoubted genuineness, drawn 
up by St. Matthew; second, of two or more Collections 
of the Sayings and Doings of the Lord, also, no doubt, 
genuine, but not necessarily by St. Matthew. 

One of these sources was made use of also by St. Mark 
in the composition of his Gospel. 

According to the testimony of Papias: 


“‘ John the Priest said this: Mark being the interpreter of 
Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, 
but not, however, in the order in which it was spoken or done 
by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but, 
as before said, he was in company with Peter, who gave him 
such instruction as occasion called forth, but did not study to 
give a history of our Lord’s discourses ; wherefore Mark has 
not erred in anything, by writing this and that as he has re- 
membered them ; for he was carefully attentive to one thing, 
not to pass by anything that he heard, nor to state anything 
falsely in these accounts.” } 


It has been often asked and disputed, whether this 
statement applies to the Gospel of St. Mark received by 
the Church into her sacred canon. 

It can hardly be denied that the Canonical Gospel of 
Mark does answer in every particular to the description 
of its composition by John the Priest. John gives five 
characteristics to the work of Mark: 

1. A striving after accuracy.” 

2. Want of chronological succession in his narrative, 
which had rather the character of a string of anecdotes 
and sayings than of a biography.* 

1 Kuseb. Hist. Heel. 111, 39. 

2 ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, and ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν τοῦ μηδὲν παραλιπεῖν ἢ 
ψεύδασθαι. 


5. Οὐ μέντοι τάξει, and ἔνια γράφας, ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 172 


3. It was composed of records of both the sayings and 
the doings of Jesus.* 

4, It was no syntax of sayings (σύνταξις λογίων), like 
the work of Matthew.’ 

5. It was the composition of a companion of Peter. 

These characteristic features of the work of Mark 
agree with the Mark Gospel, some of the special features 
of which are: 

1. Want of order: it is made up of a string of epi- 
sodes and anecdotes, and of sayings manifestly uncon- 
nected. 

2. The order of events is wholly different from that 
in Matthew, Luke and John. 

3. Both the sayings and the doings of Jesus are re- 
lated in it. : 

4. It contains no long discourses, like the Gospel of 
St. Matthew, arranged in systematic order. 

5. It contains many incidents which point to St. Peter 
as the authority for them, and recall his preaching. 

To this belong—the manner in which the Gospel 
opens with the baptism of John, just as St. Peter’s 
address (Acts x. 37—-41) begins with that event also; 
the many little incidents mentioned which give token. 
of having been related by an eye-witness, and in which 
the narrative of St. Matthew is deficient.* St. Mark’s 


1 λεχθέντα καὶ πραχθέντα. 

2 Μαθαῖος τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο---. Μάρκος. . . οὐκ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν 
τῶν κυριακῶν λογίων ποιούμενος. 

3 Μάρκος ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος ἔγραφεν. 

4 Mark i. 20, “they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the 
day-labourers ;” i. 81, ‘‘he took her by the hand ;” ii. 3, ‘‘a paralytic 
borne of four ;” 4, ‘‘they broke up the roof and let down the bed;” 
ili. 10, ‘‘ they pressed upon him to touch him ;”’ 111. 20, ‘‘they could not 
so much as eat bread;” 111, 32, ‘‘ the multitude sat about him;” iv. 36, 
‘they took him even as he was,” without his going home first to get what 
was necessary; iv. 38, “on ὦ pillow,” v. 3—5, v. 25—34, vi. 40, the 


174 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





Gospel is also rich in indications of the feelings of the 
people toward Jesus, such as an eye-witness must have 
observed, and of notices of movements of the body— 
small significant acts, which could not escape one present 
who described what he had seen.? 

That the composer of St. Matthew’s Gospel made use 
of the material out of which St. Mark compiled his, that 
is, of the memorabilia of St. Peter, is evident. Whole 
passages of St. Mark’s Gospel occur word for word, or 
nearly so, in the Gospel of St. Matthew.’ 

Moreover, it is apparent that sometimes the author of 
St. Matthew’s Gospel misunderstood the text. A few 
instances must suffice here. 

Mark 11. 18: “ And the disciples of John and of the 
Pharisees were fasting. And they came to him and 
said to him, Why do the disciples of John, and the 
disciples of the Pharisees, fast, and thy disciples fast 
not?” It is clear that it was then a fasting season, 
which the disciples of Jesus were not observing. The 
“they” who came to him does not’mean “ the disciples 


ranks, the hundreds, the green grass; vi. 53—56, x. 17, there came one 
running, and kneeled to him; x. 50, ‘‘ casting away his robe;” xi. 4, ‘fa 
zolt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met;” xi. 12—14, 
xi. 16, xiii. 1, the disciples notice the great stones of which the temple 
was built; xiv. 3, 5, 8, xiv. 31, ‘‘he spoke yet more vehemently ;” 
xiv. 51, 52, 66, ‘‘he warmed himself at the fire;” xv. 21, ‘‘ coming out 
of the country ;” xv. 40, 41, Salome named. 

1 Mark i, 33, 45, ii. 2, 13, iii. 9, 20, 32, iv. 10, v. 21, 24, 31, vi. 31, 
55, viii. 34, xi. 18. 

2 Marki. 7, ‘‘ he bowed himself ;” iii. 5, “he looked round with anger ;” 
ix. 88, ‘‘ he sat down;” x. 16, ‘‘he took them up in his arms, and laid 
his hands on them;” x. 23, ‘‘ Jesus looked round about;” xiv. 3, ‘‘she 
broke the box;” xiv. 4, ‘‘ they murmured ;” xiv. 40, ‘‘they knew not 
what to answer him ;” xiv. 67, &c. 


3 Compare 
Mark iv. 4 sq.; viii. 1sq.; x. 42 μα. ; xiii, 28 κα. ; xiv. 43 sq. &c. 
Matt. xiii 4sq.; xv. 92 β4.; xx. 288q.; xxiv, 828q.; xxvi. 47 Βα. &e. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 175 


of John and of the Pharisees,” but certain other persons. 
Kat ἔρχονται is so used in St. Mark’s Gospel in several 
places, like the French “ on venait.” 

But the compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel did not 
understand this use of the: verb without a subject ex- 
_ pressed, and he made “the disciples of John” ask the 
question. 

Mark vi. 10: Ὅπου ἂν εἰσέλθητε εἰς οἰκίαν, ἐκεῖ μένετε 
ἕως ἄν ἐξέλθητε ἐκεῖθεν. That is, “ Wherever (1.6. in what- 
soever town or village) ye enter into a house, therein 
remain (..6. in that house) till ye go away thence (we. 
from that city or village).” By leaving out the word 
house, Matthew loses the sense of the command (x. 11), 
“Into whatsoever town or village ye enter—remain in 
it till ye go out of it.” 

Mark vii. 27, 28. The Lord answers the Syro-Phe- 
nician woman, “ Let the children first be filled: for it is 
not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto 
the dogs.” The woman answers, “ Yes, Lord; yet the 
dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.” The 
' meaning is, God gives His grace and mercy first to the 
Jews (the children); and this must not be taken from 
the Jews to be given to the heathen (the dogs). True, 
answers the woman; but the heathen do partake of the 
blessings that overflow from the portion of the Jews. 

But the so-called Matthew did not catch the signifi- 
cation, and the point is lost in his version (xv. 27). He 
makes the woman answer, “The dogs eat of the crumbs 
which fall from their masters’ table.” 

Mark x. 13. According to St. Mark, parents brought 
their children to Christ, probably with some superstitious 
idea, to be touched. This offended the disciples. “They 
rebuked those that brought them.” But Jesus was dis- 
pleased, and said to the disciples, “Suffer the little 


176 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


children to come unto me.” And instead of fulfilling 
the superstitious wishes of the parents, he took the 
children in his arms and blessed them. But the text 
used by St. Matthew’s compilator was probably defective 
at the end of verse 13, and ended, “and his disciples 
rebuked ....” The compiler therefore completed it 
with αὐτοῖς instead of τοῖς προσφέρουσιν, and then mis- 
understood verse 14, and applied the ἄφετε differently : 
“Let go the children, and do not hinder them from 
coming to me.” In St. Mark, the disciples rebuke the 
parents; in St. Matthew, they rebuke the children, and 
intercept them on their way to Christ. 

Mark xii. 8: “They slew him and cast him out,” 1.6. 
cast out the dead body. The compiler of St. Matthew’s 
Gospel did not see this. He could not understand how 
that the son was killed and then cast out of the vine- 
yard; so he altered the order into, “ They cast him out 
and slew him” (xxi. 38). 

Examples might be multiplied, but these must suffice. 
If I am not mistaken, they go far to prove that the 
author of St. Matthew’s Gospel used the material, or 
some of the material, out of which St. Mark’s Gospel 
was composed. 

But there are also other proofs. The text of St. Mark 
has been taken into that of St. Matthew’s Gospel, but 
not without some ehanges, corrections which the com- 
piler made, thinking the words of the text in his 
hands were redundant, vulgar, or not sufficiently ex- 
plicit. 
Thus Mark i. 5: “The whole Jewish land and all 
they of Jerusalem,” he changed into, “Jerusalem and all 
Judea.” 


1 For more examples, see Scholten, Das alteste Evangelium, Elberfeld, 
1869, pp. 66—78. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. L722 





Mark i. 12: “The Spirit driveth,” ἐκβάλλει, he soft- 
ened into “led,” ἀνήχθη. 

Mark iii. 4: “ He saith, Is it lawful to do good on the 
Sabbath-days, or to do evil?” In St. Matthew’s Gospel, 
before performing a miracle, Christ argues the necessity 
of showing mercy on the Sabbath-day, and supplies 
what is wanting in St. Mark—the conclusion, “ Where- 
fore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-days” 
(xii. 12). 

Mark iv. 12: “That seeing they might not see, and 
hearing they might not hear.” This seemed harsh to 
the compiler of St. Matthew. It was as if unbelief and 
blindness were fatally imposed by God on men. He 
therefore alters the tenor of the passage, and attributes 
the blindness of the people, and their incapability of 
understanding, to their own grossness of heart (xii. 14, 
15). 

Mark v. 37: “ The ship was freighted,” in St. Matthew, 
is altered into, “the ship was covered” with the waves 
(vill. 34). 

Mark vi. 9: “Money in the girdle,’ changed into, 
“money in the girdles” (x. 9). 

Mark ix. 42: “A millstone were put on his neck,” 
changed to, “were hung about his neck” (xviii. 6). 

Mark x. 17: “Sell all thou hast ;” Matt. xix. 21, “all 
thy possessions.” 

Mark xii. 30: “He took a woman;” Matt. xxii. 25, 
“he married.” 

But if it be evident that the author of St. Matthew’s 
Gospel laid under contribution the material used by St. 
Mark, it is also clear that he did not use St. Mark’s 
Gospel as it stands. He had the fragmentary memo- 
rabilia of which it was made up, or a large number of 
them, but unarranged. He sorted them and wove them 

I 3 


178 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





in with the “ Logia” written by St. Matthew, and after- 
wards, independently, without knowledge, probably, of 
what had been done by the compiler of the first Gospel, 
St. Mark compiled his. Thus St. Matthew’s is the first 
Gospel in order of composition, though much of the 
material of St. Mark’s Gospel was written and in circu- . 
lation first. 

This will appear when we see how independently of 
one another the compiler of St. Matthew and St. Mark 
arrange their “ memorabilia.” 

It is unnecessary to do more to illustrate this than to 
take the contents of Matt. iv—xiii. 

According to St. Matthew, after the Sermon on the 
Mount, Christ heals the leper, then enters Capernaum, 
where he receives the prayer of the centurion, and 
forthwith enters into Peter’s house, where he cures the 
mother-in-law, and the same night crosses the sea. 

But according to St. Mark, Christ cast out the unclean 
spirit in the synagogue at Capernaum, then healed 
Peter's wife’s mother, and, not the same night but long 
after, crossed the sea. On his return he went through 
the villages preaching, and then healed the leper. 

The accounts are the same, but the order is altogether 
different. The deutero-Matthew must have had the 
material used by Mark under his eye, for he adopts it 
into ‘his narrative; but he cannot have had St. Mark’s 
Gospel, or he would not have so violently disturbed the 
order of events. 

The compiler has been guilty of an inaccuracy in the 
use of “Gergesenes” instead of Gadarenes. St. Mark is 
right. Gadara was situated near the river Hieromax, 
east of the Sea of Galilee, over against Scythopolis and 
Tiberias, and capital of Perea. This agrees exactly with 
what is said in the Gospels of the miracle performed 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 179 





in the “country of the Gadarenes.” The swine rushed 
violently down a steep place and perished in the lake. 
Jesus had come from the N.W. shore of the Sea to 
Gadara in the 8.E. But the country of the Gergesenes 
can hardly be the same as that of the Gadarenes. Ge- 
rasa, the capital, was on the Jabbok, some days’ journey 
distant from the lake. The deutero-Matthew was there- 
fore ignorant of the topography of the neighbourhood 
whence Levi, that is Matthew, was called. 

St. Mark says that Christ healed one demoniac in the 
synagogue of Capernaum, then crossed the lake, and 
healed the second in Gadara. But St. Matthew, or 
rather the Greek compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel, has 
fused these two events into one, and makes Christ heal 
both possessed men in the country of the Gergesenes. 
In like manner we have twice the healing of two blind 
men (ix. 27 and xx. 30), whereas the other evangelists 
know of only single blind men being healed on both 
occasions. How comes this? The compiler had two 
accounts of each miracle of healing the blind, slightly 
varying. He thought they referred to the same occa- 
sion, but to different persons, and therefore made Christ 
heal two men, whereas he had given sight to but one. 

In the former case the compiler had not such a cir- 
cumstantial account of the restoration to sound mind of 
the demoniac in the synagocue as St. Mark had received 
from St. Peter. He knew only that on the occasion of 
Christ’s visit to the Sea of Tiberias he had recovered 
two men who were possessed, and so he made the heal- 
ing of both take place simultaneously at the same spot. 

An equally remarkable instance of the fact that St. 
Matthew’s Gospel was made up of fragmentary “recol- 
lections” by various eye-witnesses, is that of the dumb 
man possessed with a devil, in ix. 32. - At Capernaum, 


180 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


after having restored Jairus’ daughter to life and healed 
the two blind men, the same day the dumb man is 
brought to him. The devil is cast out, the dumb speaks, 
and the Pharisees say, “He casteth out devils through 
the prince of the devils.” 

This is exactly the same account which has been used 
by St. Luke (xi. 14). But in xii. 22 we have the same 
incident over again. There is brought unto Christ one 
possessed with a devil, blind and dumb; him Christ 
heals; whereupon the Pharisees say, “This fellow doth 
not cast out devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the 
devils.” Then follows the solemn warning against blas- 
phemy. 

It is clear that the Greek compiler of St. Matthew’s 
Gospel must have had two independent accounts of this 
miracle, one with the warning against blasphemy ap- 
pended to it, the other without. He gives both accounts, 
one as occurring at Capernaum, the other much later, 
after Jesus had gone about Galilee preaching, and the 
Pharisees had conspired against him. 

St. Matthew says that after the healing of Peter’s 
wife’s mother, Jesus, that same evening, cured many 
sick, and in the night crossed to the country of the Ger- 
gesenes. But St. Mark says that he remained that night 
at Capernaum, and rose early next morning before day, 
and went into a solitary place. According to him, this 
crossing over the sea did not occur till long after. 

The following table will show how remarkably dis- 
cordant is the arrangement of events in the two evangels. 
The order of succession differs, but not the events and 
teaching recorded ; surely a proof that both writers com- 
posed these Gospels out of similar but fragmentary ac- 
counts available to both. The following table will show 
this disagreement at 8 glance. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 


181 





St. Marruew. 
(At Capernaum), iv. 13. 

1. Goes about preaching in the 
villages of Galilee (23), 1. 

2. (Sermon on the Mount (v.— 
Vii. ). 

3. | Leper cleansed (viii. 2—4). 

4, | Centurion’s servant healed (5— 
13). 

5. | Peter’s wife’s mother healed 
(14, 15). 

6. | At even cures the sick (16). 

7. | Same night crosses the sea (18 

97): 
. (In the country of Gergesenes). 
8. Heals two demoniacs (28—39), 
(Returns to Capernaum), ix. 1. 
9. ( Sick of the palsy healed (2—8). 


10. | Calls Matthew (9). 

11. | Hemorrhitess cured (20—22). 

12, | Jairus’ daughter restored (18 
—26). 

13. | Two blind men healed (27— 
30). 

14. | Dumb man healed (32, 33), 

15, | Warning against blasphemy 


L. (84). 
(Goes about Galilee), 35 and xi. 1. 


16. Sends out the Twelve (x). 
(Probably at Capernaum). 
17. John’s disciples come fo him 
(xi. 2—6). 
18. Denunciation of cities of Galilee 
(20—24), 
19. Plucks the ears of corn (xii. 1 
—9). 
20. Heals the withered hand (10— 
13). 
21. Consultation against Jesus(14). 
(Leaves Capernaum), 15. 
22. Heals deaf and dumb man (22), 
23. Denunciation of blasphemy (24 


—32), 


Sr. Marx. 
(At Capernaum), i. 21. 
— (Heals man with unclean spirit 


(23—28). 

5. | Peter’s mother-in-law healed 
(30, 31). 

6. | At even heals the sick (32— 
34). 


Next day rises early and goes 
intoa solitary place(35—37). 
(Leaves Capernaum), 

1. Goes about the villages of Gaii- 

lee (38, 39). 

3. Heals the leper (40, 41). 

(Outside the town of Capernaum), 
45. 
(Returns to Capernaum), ii. 1. 

9. ( Sick of the palsy healed (2— 

13). 


10. { Levi called (14). 

19. Plucks the ears of corn (23— 
28). 

20. Heals the withered hand (iii. 
1—5). 

21. Consultation against Jesus (6). 


(Leaves Capernaum), 7. 
6. Heals many sick (10—12), 
Goes into a mountain and 
chooses the Twelve (13—19), 
15, 23. The Pharisees blaspheme ; 
warning against blasphemy 


(22—30). 
24. Mother and brethren seek him 
(31—85). 


25. ¢ Teaches from the ship ; parable 
of the sower (iv. 1—20). 
7. } Crosses the lake in a storm (35 
- 41). 
(In the country of Gadarenes). 
8. Heals the demoniac (v. 1—20), 
(Returns to Capernaum), 21. 
Hemorrhitess healed (25—34). 
Jairus’ daughter restored (22 
—43), 


11: 
12. 


182 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





24. Mother and brethren seek 16. Sends out the Twelve (vi: 7— 
Jesus (46—50). 13). 
25. Teaches from the ship; parable 
of sower (xiii. 1—12). 
(Returns to his own country), 53. 


The order in St. Luke is again different. Jesus calls 
Levi, chooses the Twelve, preaches the sermon on the 
plain, heals the Centurion’s servant, goes then from place 
to place preaching. Then occurs the storm on the lake, 
and after having healed the demoniac Jesus returns to 
Capernaum, cures the woman with the bloody flux, raises 
Jairus’ daughter and sends out the Twelve. 

In the Gospel of St. Mark, the parable of the sower is 
spoken on “the same day” on which, in the evening, 
Jesus crosses the lake in a storm. 

In the Gospel of St. Matthew, this parable is spoken 
long after, on “the same day” as his mother and bre- 
thren seek him, and this is after he has been in the 
country of the Gadarenes, has returned to Capernaum, 
gone about Galilee preaching, come back again to Caper- 
naum, but has been driven away again by the conspiracy 
of the Pharisees. 

It would appear from an examination of the two Gos- 
pels that articles 23, 24 and 25 composed one document, 
for both St. Matthew and St. Mark used it as it is, ina 
block, only they differ as to where to build it in. 

19, 20 and 21 formed another block of Apostolic 
Memorabilia, and was built in by the deutero-Matthew 
in one place and by St. Mark in another. 5 and 6, and 
again 9 and 10, were smaller compound recollections 
which the compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel and St. 
Mark obtained in their concrete forms. On the other 
hand, 3 and 16 formed recollections consisting of but 
one member, and are thrust into the narrative where the 
~ two compilers severally thought most suitable. We are 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 183 


therefore led by the comparison of the order in which 
events in our Lord’s life are related by St. Matthew and 
St. Mark, to the conclusion, that the author of the first 
Gospel as it stands had not St. Mark’s Gospel in its 
complete form before him when he composed his record. 

We have yet another proof that this was so. 

St. Matthew’s Gospel is not so full in its account of 
‘some incidents in our Lord’s life as is the Gospel of St. 
Mark. 

The compiler of the first Gospel has shown through- 
out his work the greatest anxiety to insert every particu- 
lar he could gather relating to the doings and sayings of 
‘Jesus. This has led him into introducing the same event 
or saying over a second time if he found more than one 
version of it. Had he all the material collected in St. 
Mark’s Gospel at his disposal, he would not have omitted 
any of it. 

But we do not find in St. Matthew’s Gospel the fol- 
lowing passages : 

Mark iv. 26—29, the parable of the seed springing 
up, a type of the growth of the Gospel without further 
Jabour to the minister than that of spreading it abroad. 
The meaning of this parable is different from that in 
Matt. xii. 24—30, and therefore the two parables are not 
to be regarded as identical. 

Mark vill. 22—26. By omitting the narrative of what 
took place at Bethsaida, an apparent gap occurs in the 
account of St. Matthew after xvi. 4—12. The journey 
across the sea leads one to expect that Christ and his 
disciples will land somewhere on the coast. But Mat- 
thew, without any mention of a landing at Bethsaida, 
translates Jesus and the apostolic band to Cesarea 
Philippi. But in Mark, Jesus and his disciples land at 
Bethsaida, and after having performed a miracle of heal- 
ing there on a blind man—a miracle, the particulars of 


184 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





which are very full and interesting—they go on foot to 
Cesarea Philippi (viii. 27). That the compiler of the 
first Gospel should have left this incident out delibe- 
rately is not credible. 

Mark ix. 38, 39. In St. Matthew’s collection of the 
Logia of our Lord there existed probably the saying of 
Christ, “He that is not with me is against me” (Matt. 
xii, 30). St. Mark narrates the circumstances which 
called forth this remark. But the deutero-Matthew 
evidently did not know of these circumstances; he 
therefore leaves the saying in his record without ex- 
planation.’ 

Mark xii. 41—44. The beautiful story of the poor 
widow throwing her two mites into the treasury, and 
our blessed Lord’s commendation of her charity, is not 
to be found in St. Matthew’s Gospel. Is it possible that 
he could have omitted such an exquisite anecdote had 
he possessed it ? 

Mark xiv. 51, 52. The account of the young man fol- 
lowing, having the linen cloth cast about his naked body, 
who, when caught, left the linen cloth in the hands of 
his captors and ran off naked—an account which so 
unmistakably exhibits the narrative to have been the 
record of some eye-witness of the scene, is omitted in 
St. Matthew. On this no stress, however, can be laid. 
The deutero-Matthew may have thought the incident 
too unimportant to be mentioned. 


1 Mark ix. 37—50 is another instance of difference of order of sayings 
between him and St. Matthew. 
With Mark ix. 37 corresponds Matt. x. 49. 


ἘΠ re fa tLe: 

αὐ ee ” 9) ΣΧ. 42. 

τον Ngai tem » ον ΣΎ ΟΣ 

Ἐκ» Ὁ i 99 “0 ΠῚ xvill. 9. 
pg tay ee ay + ‘9 | VEE 


ee 50 ” » ive da. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 185 





Enough has been said to show conclusively that the 
deutero-Matthew, if we may so term the compiler of the 
first Canonical Gospel, had not St. Mark’s Gospel before 
him when he wrote his own, that he did not cut up 
the Gospel of Mark, and work the shreds into his own 
web. 

Both Gospels are mosaics, composed in the same way. 
But the Gospel of St. Mark was composed only of the 
“recollections” of St. Peter, whereas that of St. Matthew 
was more composite. Some of the pieces which were 
used by Mark were used also by the deutero-Matthew. 
This is patent : how it was so needs explanation. 

It is probable that when the apostles founded churches, 
their instructions on the sayings and doings of Jesus were 
taken down, and in the absence of the apostles were read 
by the president of the congregation. The Epistles which 
they sent were, we know, so read,’ and were handed on 
from one church to another.? But what was far more 
precious to the early believers than any letters of the 
apostles about the regulation of controversies, were their 
recollections of the Lord, their Memorabilia, as Justin 
calls them. The earliest records show us the Gospels 
read at the celebration of the Eucharist.2 The ancient 
Gospels were not divided into chapters, but into the 
portions read on Sundays and festivals, ike our “Church 
Services.” Thus the Peschito version in use in the Syrian 
churches was divided in this manner: “ Fifth day of the 
week of the Candidates” (Matt. ix. 5—17), “For the 
commemoration of the Dead” (18—26), “ Friday in the 
fifth week in the Fast” (27—88), “For the commemo- 
ration of the Holy Apostles” (86—38, x. 1—15), “For 
the commemoration of Martyrs” (16—33), “ Lesson for 
the Dead” (84—42), “Oblation for the beheading of 


1 Col. iv. 16; 1 Thess. v. 27. 2, Col; ive 16. 
3 Apost. Const, viii. 5. 


186 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


John” (xi. 1—15), “Second day in the third week of 
the Fast” (16—24). 

To these fragmentary records St. Luke alludes when 
he says that “many had taken in hand to arrange in a 
consecutive account (ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν) those things 
which were most fully believed” amongst the faithful. 
These he “traced up from the beginning accurately one 
after another” (παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς 
καθεξῆς). Here we have clearly the existence of records 
disconnected originally, which many strung together in 
consecutive order, and St. Luke takes pains, as he tells 
us, to make this order chronological. 

Some Churches had certain Memorabilia, others had a 
different set. That of Antioch had the recollections of 
St. Peter, that of Jerusalem the recollections of St. James, 
St. Simeon and St. Jude. St. Luke indicates the source 
whence he drew his account of the nativity and early 
years of the Lord,—the recollections of St. Mary, the 
Virgin Mother, communicated to him orally. He speaks 
of the Blessed Virgin as keeping the things that hap- 
pened in her heart and pondering on them. Another 
time it is contemporaries, Mary certainly included.2 On 
both occasions it is in reference to events connected 
with our Lord’s infancy. Why did he thus insist on her 
having taken pains to remember these things? Surely 
to show whence he drew his information. He narrates 
these events on the testimony of her word; and her 
word is to be relied on; for these things, he assures us, 
were deeply impressed on her memory. 

The “ Memorabilia” in use in the different Churches 
founded by the apostles would probably be strung toge- 
ther in such order as they were generally read. How 
early the Church began to have a regulated order of 
seasons, an ecclesiastical year, cannot be ascertained 

1 Luke ii. 19, 51. 2 Luke i. 66, 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 187 


with certainty ; but every consideration leads us to sus- 
pect that it grew up simultaneously with the constitution 
of the Church. With the Church of the Hebrews this 
was unquestionably the case. The Jews who believed 
had grown up under a system of fasts and festivals 
in regular series, and, as we know, they observed these 
even after they were believers in Christ. Paul, who 
broke with the Law in so many points, did not venture 
to dispense with its sacred cycle of festivals. He hasted 
to Jerusalem to attend the feast of Pentecost At 
Ephesus, even, he observed it. St. Jerome assures us 
that Lent was instituted by the apostles.* The Apostolic 
Constitutions order the observance of the Sabbath, the 
Lord’s-day, Pentecost, Christmas, Epiphany, the days of 
the Apostles, that of St. Stephen, and the anniversaries 
of the Martyrs. Indeed, the observance of the Lord’s- 
day, instituted probably by St. Paul, involves the prin- 
ciple which would include all other sacred commemo- 
rations ; for if one day was to be set apart as a memorial 
of the resurrection, it is probable that others would be 
observed in memory of the nativity, the passion, the 
ascension, ὅσο. 

As early as there was any sort of ecclesiastical year 
observed, so early would the “ Memorabilia” of the 
apostles be arranged as appropriate to these seasons. 
But such an arrangement would not be chronological ; 
therefore many took in hand, as St. Luke tells us, to 
correct this, and he took special care to give the succes- 
sion of events as they occurred, not as they were read, 
by obtaining information from the best sources available. 

It is probable that the “ Recollections” of St. Peter, 
written in disjointed notes by St. Mark, were in circu- 
lation through many Churches before St. Mark composed 

1 Acts xx. 16. 2 1 Cor. xvi. 8. 

3 Epist. xxvii. ad Marcellam, * Apost. Const. viii. 33. 


188 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


his Gospel out of them. From Antioch to Rome they 
were read at the celebration of the divine mysteries ; 
and some of them, found in the Churches of Asia Minor, 
have been taken by St. Luke into his Gospel. Others 
circulating in Palestine were in the hands of the deutero- 
Matthew, and grafted into his compilation. But as St. 
Luke, St. Mark, and the composer of the first Gospel, acted 
independently, their chronological sequences differ. Their 
Gospels are three kaleidoscopic groups of the same pieces.* 

Had St. Matthew any other part in the composition 
of the first Canonical Gospel than contributing to it his 
“Syntax of the Lord’s Sayings”? Of that we can say 
nothing for certain. It is possible enough that many 
of the “doings” of Jesus contained in the Gospel may 
be memorabilia of St. Matthew, circulating in anecdota. 

A critical examination of St. Matthew’s Gospel re- 
veals fowr sources whence it was drawn, three threads 
of different texture woven into one. These are: 

1. The “ Memorabilia” of St. Peter, used afterwards 
by St. Mark. These the compiler of the first Gospel 
attached mechanically to the rest of his material by 
such formularies as “in those days,” “at that time,” 
“then,” “after that,” “when he had said these things.” 

2. The “ Logia of the Lord,” composed by St. Matthew. 

3. Another series of sayings and doings, from which 
the following passages were derived: 11. 7—10, 12, iv. 
3—11, vill. 19—22, ix. 27, 82—34, xi. 2—19. Some of 
these were afterwards used by St. Luke. Were these 
by St. Matthew? It is possible. 


4 St. Luke, however, has much that was not available to the deutero- 
Matthew, and St. Mark rigidly confined himself to the use of St. Peter’s 
recollections only. 

2 St. Luke’s Gospel contains Hebraisms, yet he was not a Jew (Col. iv. 
11, 14). This can only be accounted for by his using Aramaic texts which 
he translated. From these the Acts of the Apostles are free. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 189 


4. To the fourth category belong chapters 1. and ii., 
li, 3, xiv. 15, the redaction of iv. 12, 13, 14, 15, v. 1, 2, 
19, vi. 22, 23, vill. 12, 17, x. 5, 6, xi 2, xii. 17—21, 
ΧΙ. 35—43, 49, 50, the redaction of xiv. 13a, xiv. 
28—31, xv. 24, xvil. 24b—27, xix. 17a, 190, 28, xx. 16, 
met, /, xxi. 4, 5, xxiii. 10, 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29, 35, 
the redaction of xxiv. 3, 20, 510, xxv. 300, xxvi. 2, 15, 
25, xxvul. 51—53, xxvii. 62—66, xxvii. la, 2—4, 8, 9, 
11—15. 

Was this taken from a collection of the recollections 
of St. Matthew, and the series 3 from another set of 
Apostolic Memorabilia? That it is not possible to 
decide. 

Into the reasons which have led to this separation of 
the component parts 3, 4, the peculiarities of diction 
which serve to distinguish them, we cannot enter here ; 
it would draw us too far from the main object of our 
inquiry. 

The theory that the Synoptical Gospels were com- 
-posed of various disconnected materials, variously united 
into consecutive biographies, was accepted by Bishop 
Marsh, and it is the only theory which relieves the 
theologian from the unsatisfactory obligation of making 
“harmonies” of the Gospels. If we adopt the received 
popular conception of the composition of the Synoptical 
Gospels, we are driven to desperate shifts to fit them 
together, to reconcile their discrepancies. 

The difficulty, the impossibility, of effecting such a 
harmony of the statements of the evangelists was felt 

1 Cf. Scholten: Das dlteste Evangelium; Elberfeld, 1869. See also 
on St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s Gospels, Saunier: Ueber der Quellen 
des Evang. Marc., Berlin, 1825; De Wette: Lehrb. d. Hist. Krit. Einleit. 
in ἃ. N.T., Berl. 1848; Baur: Der Ursprung der Synop. Evang., Stutig. 
1843; Késtlin: Das Markus Evang., Leipz. 1850; Wilke: Der Urevang., 


Dresd. 1838; Réville: Etudes sur VEvang. selon St. Matt., Leiden, 
1862, &e. 


190 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


by the early Christian writers. Origen says that the 
attempt to reconcile them made him giddy. Among 
the writings of Tatian was a Diatessaron, or harmony of 
the Gospels. Eusebius adventured on an explanation 
“of the discords of the Evangelists.” St. Ambrose 
exercised his pen on a concordance of St. Matthew with 
St. Luke; St. Augustine wrote “De consensu Evange- 
listarum,” and in his effort to force them into agree- 
ment was driven to strange suppositions—as that when 
our Lord went through Jericho there was a blind man 
by the road-side leading into the city, and another by 
the road-side leading out of it, and that both were healed 
under very similar circumstances. 

Apollinaris, in the famous controversy about Easter, 
declared that it was irreconcilable with the Law that 
Christ should have suffered on the great feast-day, as 
related by St. Matthew, but that the Gospels disagreed 
among themselves on the day upon which he suffered.’ 
The great Gerson sought to remove the difficulties in a 
“Concordance of the Evangelists,” or “ Monotessaron.” 

Such an admission as that the Synoptical Gospels 
were composed in the manner I have pointed out, in no 
way affects their incomparable value. They exhibit to 
us as in a mirror what the apostles taught and what 
their disciples believed. Faith does not depend on the 
chronological sequence of events, but on the verity of 
those events. “See!” exclaimed St. Chrysostom, “how 
through the contradictions in the evangelical history 
in minor particulars, the truth of the main facts trans- 
pires, and the trustworthiness of the authors is made 
manifest !” 

In everything, both human and divine, there is an 

1 Chron. Paschale, p. 6, ed. Ducange. Τῇδε μεγάλη ἡμέρᾳ τῶν ἀζύμων 
αὐτος ἔπαθεν, καὶ διηγοῦνται MarOaioy οὕτω λέγειν" ὅθεν ἀσύμφωνος, 
τῷ νόμῳ ἡ νόησις αὐτῶν, καὶ στασιάζειν δοκαῖν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς τὰ εὐαγγελία. 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 191 


union of infallibility in that which is of supreme impor- 
tance, and of fallibility in that which concerns not sal- 
vation. The lenses through which the light of the world 
shone to remote ages were human scribes liable to error. 
Θεῖα πάντα καὶ ἀνθρώπινα πάντα, was the motto Tholuck 
inscribed on his copy of the Sacred Oracles. 

Having established the origin of the Gospel of St. 
Matthew, we are able now to see our way to establish- 
ing that of the Gospel of the Twelve, or Gospel of the 
Hebrews. 

No doubt it also was a mosaic made out of the 
same materials as the Gospel of St. Matthew. There 
subsisted side by side in Palestine a Greek-speaking 
and an Aramaic-speaking community of Christians, the 
one composed of proselytes from among the Gentiles, 
the other of converts from among the Jews. This 
Gentile Church in Palestine was scarcely influenced by 
St. Paul; it was under the rule of St. Peter, and there- 
fore was more united to the Church at Jerusalem in 
-habits of thought, in religious customs, in reverence 
for the Law, than the Churches of “ Asia” and Greece. 
There was no antagonism between them. There was, 
on the contrary, close intercourse and mutual sympathy. 

Each community, probably, had its own copies of 
Apostolic Memorabilia, not identical, but similar. Some 
of the “recollections” were perhaps written only in 
Aramaic, or only in Greek, so that the collection of one 
community may have been more complete in some par- 
ticulars than the collection of the other. The necessity 
to consolidate these Memorabilia into a consecutive nar- 
rative became obvious to both communities, and each 
composed “in order” the scraps of record of our Lord’s 
sayings and doings they possessed and read in their sacred 
mysteries. St. Matthew’s “Logia of the Lord” was used 
in the compilation of the Hebrew Gospel; one of the 


192 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


translations of it, which, according to Papias, were 
numerous, formed the basis also of the Greek Gospel. 

The material used by both communities, the motive 
actuating both communities, were the same; the results 
were consequently similar. That they were not abso- 
lutely identical was the consequence of their having 
been compiled independently. 

Thus the resemblance was sufficient to make St. Je- 
rome suppose the Hebrew Gospel to be the same as the 
Greek first Gospel; nevertheless, the differences were as 
great as has been pointed out in the preceding pages. 


II. 
THE CLEMENTINE GOSPEL. 


WE have now considered all the fragments of the 
Gospel of the Hebrews that have been preserved to us 
in the writings of Justin Martyr, Origen, Jerome and 
Epiphanius. 

But there is another storehouse of texts and re- 
ferences to a Gospel regarded as canonical at a very 
early date by the Nazarene or Ebionite Church. This 
storehouse is that curious collection of the sayings and 
doings of St. Peter, the Clementine Recognitions and 
. Homilhes. 

That the Gospel used by the author or authors of the 
Clementines was that of the Hebrews cannot be shown; 
but it is probable that it was so. 

The Clementines were a production of ‘the Judaizing 
party in the Primitive Church, and it was this party 
which, we know, used the Gospel of the Twelve, or of 
the Hebrews. 

The doctrine in the Clementine Recognitions and Ho- 
milies bears close relations to that of the Jewish Essenes. 
The sacrificial system of the Jewish Church is rejected. 
It was not part of the revelation to Moses, but a tradition 
of the elders. 

Distinction in meats is an essential element of reli- 
gion. Through unclean meats devils enter into men, 
and produce disease. To eat of unclean meats places 
men in the power of evil spirits, who lead them to 

Ὁ Homil. iii. 45. 
K 


194 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





idolatry and all kinds of wickedness. So long as men 
abstain from these, so long are the devils powerless 
against them.’ | 

The observance of times is also insisted on—times at 
which the procreation of children is lawful or unlawful ; 
and disease and death result from neglect of this dis- 
tinction. “In the beginning of the world men lived 
long, and had no diseases. But when through careless-- 
ness they neglected the observance of the proper times 

. they placed their children under innumerable 
afflictions.”? It is this doctrine that is apparently com- 
bated by St. Paul.2 He relaxes the restraints which 
Nazarene tradition imposed on marital intercourse. 

The rejection of sacrifices obliged the Nazarene Church 
to discriminate between what is true and false in the 
Scriptures ; and, with the Essenes, they professed liberty 
to judge the Scriptures and reject what opposed their 
ideas. Thus they refused to acknowledge that “Adam 
was a transeressor, Noah drunken, Abraham guilty of 
having three wives, Jacob of cohabiting with two sisters, 
Moses was a murderer,” ὅσο. 

The moral teaching of the Clementines is of the most 
exalted nature. Chastity 1s commended in a glowing, 
eloquent address of St. Peter.® Poverty is elevated into 
an essential element of virtue. Property is, in itself, an 
evil. “To all of us possessions are sins. The depriva- 
tion of these is the removal of sins.” “To be saved, no 
one should possess anything; but since many have pos- 
sessions, or, In other words, sins, God sends, in love, 
afflictions .... that those with possessions, but yet 
having some measure of love to God, may, by temporary 
inflictions, be saved from eternal punishments.’””® 


1 Homil, ix. 9—12. 2 Homil: xix, 22. 


3 Gal. iv. 10. 4 Homil. ii. 38, 50, 52. 
> Homi. xii. 18—21, 6 Homil. xv. 9; see also 7. 


THE CLEMENTINE GOSPEL. 195 


“Those who have chosen the blessings of the future 
kingdom have no right to regard the things here as 
their own, since they belong to a foreign king (ae. the 
prince of this world), with the exception only of water 
and bread, and those things procured by the sweat of 
the brow, necessary for the maintenance of life, and also 
one garment.”? 

Thus St. Peter is represented as living on water, bread 
and olives, and having but one cloak and tunic.2 And 
Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, describes St. James, 
first bishop of Jerusalem, as “drinking neither wine 
nor fermented liquors, and abstaining from animal food. 
A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed 
himself with oil, and never used a bath. He never wore 
woollen, but linen garments.”? 

The Ebionites looked upon Christ as the Messiah 
rather than as God incarnate. They gave him the title 
of Son of God, and claimed for him the highest honour, 
but hesitated to term him God. In their earnest main- 
. tenance of the Unity of the Godhead against Gnosticism, 
they shrank from appearing to divide the Godhead. 
Thus, in the Clementines, St. Peter says, “Our Lord 
neither asserted that there were gods except the Creator 
of all, nor did he proclaim himself to be God, but he 
pronounced him blessed who called him the Son of that 
God who ordered the universe.”* 

The Ebionitism of the Clementines is controversial. 
It was placed face to face with Gnosticism. Simon 
Macus, the representative of Gnosticism, as St. Peter is 
the representative of orthodoxy, in the Recognitions and 
Homilies, contends that the God of the Jews, the De- 
miurge, the Creator of the world, is evil. He attempts 
to prove this by showing that the world is full of pain 

1 Homil. xv. 7. 2 Homil. xii. 6. 
3 Hist. Eccl. ii. 23. 4 Homil. xvi. 15. 
K 2 


196 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





and misery. The imperfections of the world are tokens 
of imperfection in the Creator. He takes the Old Testa- 
ment. He shows from texts that the God of the Jews 
is represented as angry, jealous, repentant; that those 
whom He favours are incestuous, adulterers, murderers. 

This doctrine St. Peter combats by showing that pre- 
sent evils are educative, curative, disguised blessings ; 
and by calling all those passages in Scripture which 
attribute to God human passions, corruptions of the 
sacred text in one of its many re-editions. “God who 
created the world has not in reality such a character as 
the Scriptures assign Him,” says St. Peter; “for such a 
character is contrary to the nature of God, and therefore 
manifestly is falsely attributed to Him.”? 

From this brief sketch of the doctrines of the Ebionite 
Church from which the Clementines emanated, it will 
be seen that its Gospel must have resembled that of the 
Hebrews, or have been founded on it. The “ Recol- 
lections of the Twelve” probably existed in several 
forms, some more complete than others, some purposely 
corrupted. The Gospel of the Hebrews was in use in 
the orthodox Nazarene Church. The Gospel used by 
the author of the Clementines was in use in the same 
community. It is therefore natural to conclude their 
substantial identity. 

But though substantially the same, and both closely 
related to the Canonical Gospel of St. Matthew, they 
were not completely identical; for the Clementine 
Gospel diverged from the received text of St. Matthew 
more widely than we are justified in concluding did that 
of the Gospel of the Hebrews. 

That it was in Greek and not in Hebrew is also pro- 
bable. The converts to Christianity mentioned in the 
Recognitions and Homilies are all made from Heathen- 


1 Homil, xviii. 22. 


SS ae σι 


THE CLEMENTINE GOSPEL. 197 


ism, and speak Greek. It is at Cesarea, Tripolis, Lao- 
diczea, that the churches are established which are 
spoken of in these books,—churches filled, not with 
Jews, but with Gentile converts, and therefore requiring 


_a Gospel in Greek. 


The Clementine Gospel was therefore probably a 
sister compilation to that of the Hebrews and of St. 
Matthew. The Memorabilia of the Apostles had cireu- 
lated in Hebrew in the communities of pure Jews, in 
Greek in those of Gentile proselytes. These Memo- 
rabilia were collected into one book by the Hebrew 
Church, by the Nazarene proselytes, and by the com- 
piler of the Canonical Gospel of St. Matthew. This will 
explain their similarity and their differences. 

From what has been said of the Clementines, it will 
be seen that their value is hardly to be over-estimated 
as a source of information on the religious position 
of the Petrine Church. MHilgenfeld says: “There is 
scarcely any single writing which is of such importance 


- for the history of the earliest stage of Christianity, and 


which has yielded such brilliant disclosures at the hands 
of the most careful critics, with regard to the earliest 
history of the Christian Church, as the writings ascribed 
to the Roman Clement, the Recognitions and the Homi- 
1165. 

No conclusion has been reached in regard to the author 
of the Clementines. It is uncertain whether the Ho- 
milies and the Recognitions are from the same hand. 
Unfortunately, the Greek of the Recognitions is lost. 
We have only a Latin translation by Rufinus of Aqui- 
leia (d. 410), who took liberties with his text, as he 
informs Bishop Gaudentius, to whom he addressed his 


1 Hilgenfeld: Die Clementinischen Recognitionen und Homilien ; Jena, 


1848. Compare also Uhlhorn: Die Homilien und Recognitionen ; Got- - 


tingen, 1854; and Schliemann: Die Clementinen ; Hamburg, 1844. 


198 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





preface. He found that the copies of the book he had 
differed from one another in some particulars. Portions 
which he could not understand he omitted. There is 
reason to suspect that he altered such quotations as he 
found in it from the Gospel used by the author, and 
brought them, perhaps unconsciously, into closer con- 
formity to the received text. In examining the Gospel 
employed by the author of the Clementines, we must 
therefore trust chiefly to those texts quoted in the 
Homilies. 

Various opinions exist as to the date of the Clemen- 
tines. They have been attributed to the first, second, 
third and fourth centuries. If we were to base our 
arguments on the work as it stands, the date to be 
assigned to it is the first half of the third century. A 
passage from the Recognitions is quoted by Origen in 
his Commentary on Genesis, written in A.D. 231; and 
mention is made in the work of the extension of the 
Roman franchise to all nations under the dominion of 
Rome, an event which took place in the reign of Cara- 
calla (A.D. 211). The Recognitions also contain an 
extract from the work De. Fato, ascribed to Bardesanes, 
but which was really written by one of his scholars. 
But it has been thought, not without great probability, 
that this passage did not originally belong to the Recog- 
nitions, but was thrust into the text about the middle of 
the third century.! 

I have already pointed out the fact that the Church 
in the Clementines is never called “Christian ;” that the 
word is never employed. It belonged to the community 
established by Paul, and with it the Church of Peter had 


1 Merx, Bardesanes von Edessa, Halle, 1863, p. 113. That the ‘‘ Re- 
cognitions ” have undergone interpolation at different times is clear from 


. Book iii., where chapters 2—12 are found in some copies, but not in the 
best MSS. 


THE CLEMENTINE GOSPEL. 199 


no sympathy. To believe in the mission of Christ is, in 
the Clementine Homilies, to become a Jew. The con- 
vert from Gentiledom by passing into the Church passes 
under the Law, becomes, as we are told,a Jew. But the 
convert is made subject not to the Law as corrupted by 
the traditions of the elders, but to the original Law as 
re-proclaimed by Christ. 

The author of the Recognitions twice makes St. Peter 
say that the only difference existing between him and 
the Jews is in the manner in which they view Christ. 
To the apostles he is the Messiah come in humility, to 
come again in glory. But the Jews deny that the Mes- 
siah was to have two manifestations, and therefore reject 
Christ. 

Although we cannot rely on the exact words of the 
quotations from the Gospel in the “ Recognitions,” there 
are references to the history of our Lord which give in- 
dications of narratives contained in the Gospel used by 
the pseudo-Clement, therefore by the Ebionite Christians 
- whose views he represents. We will go through all 
such passages in the order in which they occur in the 
“ Recognitions.” 

The first allusion to a text parallel to one in the Ca- 
nonical Gospels is this: “ Not only did they not believe, 
but they added blasphemy to unbelief, saying he was a 
gluttonous man and slave of his belly, and that he was 
influenced by a demon.”? The parallel passage is in St. 
Matthew xi. 18,19. It 15 curious to notice that in the 
Recognitions the order is inverted. In St. Matthew, 
“they say, He hath a devil... .. They say, Behold a 
man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber ;” and that the term 
“wine-bibber” is changed into “slave of his belly.” 
Probably therefore in this instance the author of the 


1 Recog, 1. 48, 50. 3 Ibid, i. 40. 


200 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


Clementines borrowed from a different text from St. 
Matthew. 

In the very next chapter the Recognitions approaches 
St. Matthew closer than the lost Gospel. For in the 
- account of the crucifixion it 15 said that “the veil of the 
Temple was rent,’ whereas the Gospel of the Hebrews 
stated that the lintel of the Temple had fallen. But 
here I suspect we have the hand of Rufinus the trans- 
lator. We can understand how, finding in the text an 
inaccuracy of quotation, as he supposed, he altered it. 

The next passage relates to the resurrection. “For 
some of them, watching the place with all care, when 
they could not prevent his rising again, said that he was 
a magician; others pretended that he was stolen away.”? 
The Canonical Gospels say nothing about this difference 
of opinion among the Jews, but St. Matthew states that 
it was commonly reported among them that his disciples 
had stolen his body away. Not a word about any sus- 
picion that he had exercised witchcraft, a charge which 
we know from Celsus was brought against Christ later. 

The next passage is especially curious. It relates to 
the unction of Christ. “He was the Son of God, and 
the beginning of all things; he became man; him God 
anointed with oil that was taken from the wood of the 
Tree of Life; and from this anointing he is called 
Christ.”? Then St. Peter goes on to argue: “ In the pre- 
sent life, Aaron, the first high-priest, was anointed with 
a composition of chrism, which was made after the pat- 
tern of that spiritual ointment of which we have spoken 
before .... But if any one else was anointed with 
the same ointment, as deriving virtue from it, he became 
either king, or prophet, or priest. If, then, this temporal 
grace, compounded by men, had such efficacy, consider 


1 Recog. i. 42. * Ibid. 45. 


THE CLEMENTINE GOSPEL. 201 


how potent was that ointment extracted by God from a 
branch of the Tree of Life, when that which was made 
by men could confer so excellent dignities among men.” 

Here we have trace of an apparent myth relating to 
the unction of Jesus at his baptism. Was there any 
passage to this effect in the Hebrew Gospel translated 
by St. Jerome? It is hard to believe it. Had there 
been, we might have expected him to allude to it. 

But that there was some unction of Christ mentioned 
in the early Gospels, I think is probable. If there were 
not, how did Jesus, so early, obtain the name of Christ, 
the Anointed One? That name was given to him before 
his divinity was wholly believed in, and when he was 
regarded only as the Messiah—nay, even before the 
apostles and disciples had begun to see in him anything 
higher than a teacher sent from God, a Rabbi founding a 
new school. It is more natural to suppose that the sur- 
name of the Anointed One was given to him because of 
some event in his life with which they were acquainted, | 
than because they applied to him prophecies at a time 
when certainly they had no idea that such prophecies 
were spoken of him. 

If some anointing did really accompany the baptism, 
then one can understand the importance attached to the 
baptism by the Elkesaites and other Gnostic sects ; and 
how they had some ground for their doctrine that Jesus 
became the Christ only on his baptism. It is remark- 
able that, according to St. John’s Gospel, it is directly 
after the baptism that Andrew tells his brother Simon, 
“We have found the Messias, which is . . the Anointed.”! 
Twice in the Acts is Jesus spoken of as the Anointed: 
“Thy holy child. Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed.” 5 
The second occasion is remarkable, for it again appa- 
rently associates the anointing with the baptism. 

1 John i. 41. 2 Acts iv. 27. 
K 3 


203 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


St. Peter “opened his mouth and said . . . . The word 
‘which God sent unto the children of Israel... . that 
_ word ye know, which was published throughout all 
Juda, and began from Galilee after the baptism which _ 
John preached; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth 
with the Holy Ghost and with power.”+ I do not say 
that such an anointing did take place, but that it 1s pro- 
bable it did. When Gnosticism fixed on this anointing 
as the communication to Christ of his divine mission 
and Messiahship, then mention of it was cut out of the 
Gospels in possession of the Church, and consequently 
the Canonical Gospels are without it to this day. But 
the Christian ceremonial of baptism, which was founded 
on what took place at the baptism of the Lord, main- 
tained this unction as part of the sacrament, in the 
Eastern Church never to be dissociated from the actual 
baptism, but in the Western Church to be separated 
from it and elevated into a separate sacrament—Confir- 
mation. 

But if in the original Hebrew Gospel there was men- 
tion of the anointing of Jesus at or after his baptism, as 
I contend is probable, this mention did not include an 
account of the oil being expressed from the branch of 
the Tree of Life; that is a later addition, in full agree- 
ment with the fantastic ideas which were gradually per- 
meating and colouring Judaic Christianity. 

After the baptism, “Jesus put out, by the grace of 
baptism, that fire which the priest kindled for sins; for, 
from the time when he appeared, the chrism has ceased, 
by which the priesthood or the prophetic or the kingly 
office was conferred.”*» The Homilies are more ex- 
plicit: “He put out the fire on the altars.”* There was 
therefore in the Gospel used by the author of the 


Ὁ Acts x. 3438. 2 Recog. i. c. 48. 
3 Πῦρ βώμων ἐσβέννυσεν, Homil, 111, 26. 


ἔσκον, 1 «9. 
Fee ST ae 


THE CLEMENTINE GOSPEL. 203 


Clementines an account of our Lord, after his anointing, 
entering into the Temple and extinguishing the altar 
fires. 

In St. John’s Gospel, on which we may rely for the 
chronological sequence of events with more confidence 
than we can on the Synoptical Gospels, the casting of the 
money-changers out of the Temple took place not long 
after the baptism. In St. Matthew’s account it took 
place at the close of the ministry, in the week of the 
Passion. That this exhibition of his authority marked 
the opening of his three years’ ministry rather than the 
close is most probable, and then it was, no doubt, that 
he extinguished the fires on the altar, according to the 
Gospel used by the author of the Clementines. Whether 
this incident occurred in the Gospel of the Hebrews it 
is not possible to say. 

We are told that “James and John, the sons of 
Zebedee, had a command... . not to enter into their 
cities (z.¢. the cities of the Samaritans), nor to bring the 


. word of preaching to them.”* “ And when our Master 


sent us forth to preach, he commanded us, But into 
whatsoever city or house we should enter, we should 
say, Peace be to this house. And if, said he, a son of 
peace be there, your peace shall come upon him; but if 
there be not, your peace shall return unto you. Also, 
that going from house to city, we should shake off upon 
them the very dust which adhered to our feet. But it 
shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and 
Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for that city or 
house.’ The Gospel of the Clementines, it is plain, 
contained an account of the sending forth of the apostles 
almost identical with that in St. Matthew, x. 

“And... . Jesus himself declared that John was 


1 Recog. i. c. 57. 2 Ibid. ii. 80, also ii. 3. 


204 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





greater than all men and all the prophets.”+ The corre- 
sponding passage is in St. Matthew.? 

The Beatitudes, or some of them, were in it. “He 
said, Blessed are the poor; and promised earthly rewards; 
and promised that those who maintain righteousness 
shall be satisfied with meat and drink.”* “Our Master, 
inviting his disciples to patience, impressed on them the 
blessing of peace, which was to be preserved with the 
labour of patience... .. He charges (the believers) to 
have peace among themselves, and says to them, Blessed 
are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the very sons 
of God.”* “The Father, whom only those can see who 
are pure in heart.”® Again strong similarity with slight 
difference. “He said, 7 am not come to send peace on 
earth, but a sword; and henceforth you shall sce father 
separated from son, son from father, husband from wife, 
and wife from husband, mother from daughter, and 
daughter from mother, brother from brother, father-in-law 
from daughter-in-law, friend from friend.’® . This is 
fuller than the corresponding passage in St. Matthew.’ 

“Tt is enough for the disciple to be as his master.” § 
“He mourned over those who lived in riches and luxury, 
and bestowed nothing upon the poor; showing that they 
must render an account, because they did not pity their 
neighbours, even when they were in poverty, whom they 
ought to love as themselves.”® “In like manner he 
charged the Scribes and Pharisees during the last period 
of his teaching . . . . with hiding the key of knowledge 
which they had handed down to them from Moses, by 
which the gate of the heavenly kingdom might be 


1 Recog. i. ο, 60. 2 Matt. xi. 9, 11. 
3 Recog. i. 6. 61, ii. ο, 28. 4 Ibid. ii. 27, 29. 
Ὁ Tbid. ii, 22, 28, 6 Ibid. ii. 28, 32. 
7 Matt. x. 34—36. 8 Recog. ii. 27; Matt. x. 25. 


® Ibid: 29: 


THE CLEMENTINE GOSPEL. 205 


opened.” The key of knowledge occurs only in St. 
Luke’s Gospel. Had the author of the Clementines any 
knowledge of that Gospel? I do not think so, or we 
should find other quotations from St. Luke. St. Matthew 
says, “ Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! 
for ye shut up (κλείετε) the kingdom of heaven.”? St. 
Luke says, “ Ye have taken away the key (τὴν κλεῖδα) of 
knowledge.” ? The author of the Clementines says, “ Ye 
have hidden the key,’ not “taken away.” I do not 
think, when the expression in St. Matthew suggests the 
“key,” that we need suppose that the author of the 
Recognitions quoted from St. Luke; rather, I presume, 
from his own Gospel, which in this passage resembled 
the words in St. Luke rather than those in St. Matthew, 
without, however, being exactly the same.* 

“Every kingdom divided against itself shall not stand.”® 
“Seck ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, 
and all these things shall be added to you.”® The writer 
knew, in the same terms as St. Matthew, our Lord’s 
sayings: “Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither 
cast your pearls before swine." “ Whosoever shall look 
upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery 
with her in his heart... . . If thy right eye offend thee, 
pluck rt out, and cast it from thee ; for τέ rs profitable for 
thee that one of thy members perish, rather than thy whole 
body be cast into hell-fire.” ὃ 


1 Recog. ii. 30. 2 Matt, xxiii. 13. 
3 Luke xi. 52. 


4 Recog. ii. 6. 46: ‘‘They must seek his kingdom and righteousness 
which the Scribes and Pharisees, having received the key of knowledge, 
have not shut in but shut ουὐ." The same Syro-Chaldaic expression has 
been variously rendered in Greek by St. Matthew and St. Luke. See 
Lightfoot : Hore Hebraic in Luc. xi. 52. 


5 Recog. ii. 31, 35. 6 Jbid. iii. 41, 37, 20. 
7 Ibid, iii. i. 8 Ibid. vii. 37. 


206 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


The woes denounced on the Scribes and Pharisees," 
and the saying that the Queen of the South should “rise 
in Judgment against this generation,”? are given in the 
Recognitions as in St. Matthew, as also that “the 
harvest is plenteous,’? “that no man can serve two 
masters,’* and the saying on the power of faith to move 
mountains.® 

We have the parables of the goodly pearl,® of the 
marriage supper,’ and of the tares,> but also that of the 
sower,? which does not occur in St. Matthew, but in St. 
Luke, This therefore was found in the Gospel used by 
the author of the Recognitions. There are two other 
apparent quotations from St. Luke: “Jl have come to send 
Jive on the earth, and how I wish that it were kindled ; 19 
and the story of the rich fool. The first, however, is 
differently expressed from St. Luke. There are just two 
more equally questionable quotations: “ Be ye merciful, 
as also your heavenly Father is merciful, who makes his 
sum to rise upon the good and the evil, and rains wpon the 
just and the unjust.” We have the Greek in one of the 
Homilies.% In St. Luke it runs, “ Be ye therefore mer- 
ciful, as your Father also is merciful.”* In St. Matthew, 
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good 
to them that hate you, and pray for them that despite- 
fully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the 
children of your Father which is in heaven: for he 
maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and 


1 Recog. vi. 11. 2 Ibid. vi. 14. 

3 Thid. iv. 4. 4 Ibid. v. 9. 

5 Ibid. v. 2. 8 Thid. iii. 62. 

7 Ibid. iv. 35. 8 Tbid. iii. 38. 

9 Thid. iii. 14. 10 Thid. vi. 4. 

τ Tbid. x. 45. 12 Thid. v. 13, iii, 38. 


13 Hom. iii. 57. 14 Luke vi. 36. 


THE CLEMENTINE GOSPEL. 207 





sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”* Is it not 
clear that either the pseudo-Clement condensed the di- 
rection, “ Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, 
do good: to them that hate you, and pray for them that 
despitefully use you, and persecute you,” into the brief 
maxim, “Be ye good and merciful,’—or that, and this is 
more probable, there were concurrent traditional ac- 
counts of our Lord’s saying, and that St. Matthew, St. 
Luke, and the writer of the Gospel used by the pseudo- 
Clement, made use of independent texts in their compi- 
lations ? 

The next passage is a saying of our Lord on the cross, 
which is given in the Recognitions: “Father, forgive 
them their sin, for they know not what they do.’* In the 
Homilies we have the original Greek: “ Father, forgive 
them their sins, for they know not what they do.”° 
Rufinus has unconsciously altered the text in trans- 
lating it by making “sins” singular instead of plural. 

It is not necessary to note the insignificant difference 
of the word ἅ in the Homily and the word τί in the 
Gospel. But who cannot see that the addition of the 
words, “their sins,” completely changes the thought of 
the Saviour? Jesus prays God to forgive the Jews the 
crime they commit in crucifying him, and not to pardon 
all the sins of their lives that they have committed. 
The addition of these two words not merely modify the 
thought; they represent another of an inferior order. 
They would not have been introduced into the text if 
the author of the Gospel used by the pseudo-Clement 
had had the Gospel of St. Luke before him. These words 
were certainly not derived from St. Luke; they are due 


1 Matt. v. 44-46. ᾿" 2 Recog. vi. 5. 

3 Πάτερ ἄφες αὐτοῖς τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν οὐγὰρ οἴδασιν ἅ ποιούσιν. 
Hom, xi. 20. In St. Luke it runs, Πάτερ ἄφες αὐτοῖς" οὐ γὰρ οἴδασι τί 
motovot.—Luke xxiii. 34. 


208 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


to a separate recollection or tradition of the sayings of 
the Saviour on the cross. Those sayings we may well 
believe were cherished in the memory of the early dis- 
ciples. Tradition. always modifies, weakens, renders 
commonplace the noblest thoughts and most striking 
sayings, and colours the most original with a tint of 
triviality.? 

We find in both the Recollections and Homilies a 
passage which has been thought to be a quotation from 
St. John: “ Verily I say unto you, That unless a man is 
born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom . 
of heaven.” Here, again, the hand of Rufinus is to be 
traced. The same quotation is made in the Homilies, 
and it stands there thus: “ Verily I say unto you, Unless 
ye be born again of the water of life (or the living water) 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.* 

That the narrative of the interview with Nicodemus 
was in the Gospel of the Hebrews, we learned from 
Justin Martyr quoting it. We will place the parallel 
passages opposite each other: 


GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN, 
Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 61. Cll. DB; Ds 
“Christ said, Except ye “3. Jesus answered and 


be born again, ye cannot said unto him, Verily, verily, 
enter into the kingdom of I say unto thee, Except a 


heaven.” man be born again, he can- 
not see the kingdom of God.” 
* * * * Γ x 


1M. Nicolas: Etudes sur les Evangiles Apocryphes, pp. 72, 73. 

2 Recog. vi. 9. ‘ 

3 ᾿Αμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, tay μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε ὕδατι ζωῆς (in another place 
ὕδατι ζῶντι), εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς, υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος, οὐ μὴ 
εἰσελθῆτε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν oipayGy.—Homil. xi. 26, 


THE CLEMENTINE GOSPEL. 


209 





PsEuDO-CLEMENT, Hom. xi. 26. 

“And Christ said (with 
an oath ),} Verily I say unto 
you, Unless ye are born again 
of the water of life (in the 
name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy 


“5. Jesus answered, Ve- 
rily, verily, I say unto thee, 
Except a man be born of 
water and spirit, he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of 
God.” 


Ghost), ye cannot enter into 
_ the kingdom of heaven.” 


The fragment in the Homilies clearly belongs to the 
same narrative as the fragment in Justin’s Apology. 
Both are addressed in the second person plural, “ Except 
ye be born again ;” in the Gospel of St. John the first is, 
“ Except a man be born again;” the second, “ Except a 
man be born of water and spirit;” both in the third 
person singular. The form of the first answer in Justin 
differs from that in St. John: “he cannot enter the 
kinedom,” “he cannot see the kingdom.” 

That these are independent accounts I can hardly 
doubt. The words, “in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” are an obvious interpo- 
lation, perhaps a late one, in the text of the Homilies ; 
for Rufinus would hardly have omitted to translate this, 
though he did allow himself to make short verbal altera- 
tions. 

There is another apparent quotation from St. John in 
the fifth book of the Recognitions: “ Hvery one is made 
the servant of him to whom he yields subjection.* But 
here again the quotation is very questionable. St. John’s 
version of our Lord’s saying is, “ Whosoever committeth 
sin is the servant of sin.” St. Paul is much nearer: 


1 Recognitions vi. 9: ‘‘ For thus hath the true prophet testified to us 
with an oath: Verily I say unto you,” &c. The oath is, of course, the 
᾿Αμὴν, ἀμὴν. 

2 Recog. v. 13; John viii. 34. 


210 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 





“ Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves ser- 
vants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; 
whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteous- 
ness 71 | | 

The quotation in the Recognitions is not from St. 
Paul, for the author expressly declares it is a saying of 
our Lord. St. Paul could not have had St. John’s Gospel 
under his eye when he wrote, for that Gospel was not 
composed till long after he wrote the Epistle to the 
Romans. He gives no hint that he is quoting a saying 
of our Lord traditionally known to the Roman Christians. 
He apparently makes appeal to their experience when 
he says, “Know ye not.” Yet this fragment of an 
ancient lost Gospel in the Clementine Recognitions 
gives another colour to his words; they may be para- 
phrased, “ Know ye not that saying of Christ, To whom 
ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye 
are?” It appears, therefore, that this is an earlier re- 
corded reminiscence of our Lord’s saying than that of 
St. John. 

There is one, and only one, apparent quotation from 
St. Paul in the Recognitions: “In God’s estimation, he 
is not a Jew who is a Jew among men, nor is he a 
Gentile that is called a Gentile, but he who, believing 
in God, fulfils his law and does his will, though he be 
not circumcised.”? St. Paul’s words are: “ He is not a 
Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circum- 
cision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew 
which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the 
heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.” 

There is no doubt a resemblance between these pas- 
sages. But it is probable that the resemblance is due 
solely to community of thought in the minds of both 


1 Rom. vi. 16. 2 Recog, v. 34; Rom. ii. 28. 


THE CLEMENTINE GOSPEL. Jie 


writers. It would be extraordinary if this were a quota- 
tion, for the author of the Recognitions nowhere quotes 
from any Epistle, not even from those of St. Peter; and 
that he, an Ebionite, should quote St. Paul, whose 
Epistles the Ebionites rejected, is scarcely credible. 

The Recognitions mention the temptation: “The 
prince of wickedness .... presumed that he should 
be worshipped by him by whom he knew that he was 
to be destroyed. Therefore our Lord, confirming the 
worship of one God, answered him, It is written, Thou 
shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt 
thou serve. And he, terrified by this answer, and fear- 
ing lest the true religion of the one and true God should 
be restored, hastened straightway to send forth into this 
world false prophets and false apostles and false teachers, 
who should speak, indeed, in the name of Christ, but 
should accomplish the will of the demon.”! Here we 
have Christ indicated as the one who was to restore 
that true worship of God which Moses had instituted, 
but which the Ebionites, with their Essene ancestors, 
asserted had been defaced and corrupted by false tradi- 
tions. And in opposition to this, the devil sends out 
false apostles, false teachers, to undo this work, calling 
themselves, however, apostles of Christ. There can be 
little doubt. who is meant. The reference is to St. Paul, 
Silas, and those who accepted his views, in opposition 
to those of St. James and St. Peter. 

In Homily xu. is a citation which seems to indicate 
the use of the third Canonical Gospel.’ At first sight it 
appears to be a combination of a passage of St. Matthew 
and a parallel passage of St. Luke. It is preceded in 
the Homily by a phrase not found in the Canonical 
Gospels, but which is given, together with what follows, 


1 Recog. iv. 34. The same in the Homilies, xi. 35. 


212 


LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


as a declaration of the Saviour. The three passages are 
placed side by side for comparison : 


HOMILY xii. 19. 


“Tt must be that 
good things come, 
and happy 15 he by 
whom they come. 
In like manner it 
must be that evil 


MATT. xviii. 7. 


“It must needs 
be that offences 
come; but woe to 
that man by whom 
the offence com- 
eth.” 


LUKE xvii. 1. 

“ Tt is impossible 
but that offences 
will come; but woe 
to him _ through 
whom they come.” 


things come, but 
woe to him by whom 
they come.” ἢ 


The passage in the Homily is more complete than 
those in St. Matthew and St. Luke. The two Canonical 
Evangelists made use of imperfect fragments destitute 
of one member of the sentence. One cannot but wish 
to believe that our Lord pronounced a benediction on 
those who did good in their generation. 

“There is amongst us,” says St. Peter in his second 
Homily, “one Justa, a Syro-Phcenician, a Canaanite by 
race, whose daughter was oppressed with a grievous 
disease. And she came to our Lord, crying out and 
entreating that he would heal her daughter. But he, 
being asked by us also, said, “77 ἐδ not lawful to heal the 
Gentiles, who are like unto dogs on account of their using 
various meats and practices, while the table in the kingdom 
has been given to the sons of Israel.” But she, hearing 
this, and begging to partake as a dog of the crumbs that 
fall from this table, having changed what she was (ae. 
having given up the use of forbidden food), by living 
like the sons of the kingdom, obtained healing for her 


1 Τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἐλθεῖν δξι, μακάριος δὲ Ov οὗ ἔρχεται ὕμοιως Kai τὰ κακὰ ᾿ 
ἀνάγκη ἐλθεῖν, οὐὖαι δὲ δι’ οὗ ἔρχεται. 


THE CLEMENTINE GOSPEL. 213 





daughter as she asked. For she being a Gentile, and 
remaining in the same course of life, he would not 
have healed her had she persisted to live as do the 
Gentiles, on account of its not being lawful to heal a 
Gentile.” 1 

That the Ebionites perverted the words of our Lord 
to make them support their tenets on distinction of 
meats is obvious. 

In the Clementine Homilies we have thrice repeated 
a saying of our Lord which we know of from St. Jerome 
and St. Clement of Alexandria, who speak of it as un- 
doubtedly a genuine saying of Christ, “ Be ye good money- 
changers.” 

This text is used by the author of the Clementines 
to prove the necessity of distinguishing between the 
gold and the dross in Holy Scripture. And to this he 
adds the quotation, “ Ye do therefore err, not knowing 
the true things of the Scriptures; and for this reason ye 
are ignorant also of the power of God.’? 

The following are some more fragments from the 
Clementine Homilies: 

“He said, I am he of whom Moses prophesied, saying, 
A prophet shall the Lord your God raise wnto you of your 
brethren, like unto me: him hear ye ὧν all things; and 
whosoever will not hear the prophet shall die.”’* This 
saying of Moses is quoted by both St. Peter and St. 
Stephen in their addresses, as recorded in the Acts. 
It is probable, therefore, that our Lord had claimed this 
prophecy to have been spoken of him. But St. Luke 
had never heard that he had done so, as he makes no 
allusion to it in his Gospel or in the speeches he puts in 
the mouths of Peter and Stephen in the Acts. 


3 Hom, ii. 19. a fhid. 1. Gr 
3 bid. ii. 51, xviii. 20. 4 Ibid. ii, 53. 


214 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


“Tt is thine, O man, said he, to prove my words, as 
silver and money are proved by the exchangers.’* 

“ Give none occasion to the evil one.”* 

Twice repeated we have the text, “ Thow shalt fear the 
Lord. thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”* 

In St. Matthew’s Gospel (iv. 10) it runs, “Thou shalt 
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou 
serve.” 

In the Clementines: “ He alleged that it was right to 
present to him who strikes you on one cheek the other 
also, and to give to him who takes away your cloak 
your hood also, and to go two miles with him who 
compels you to go one.”* This differs from the account 
in St. Matthew, by using for the word χιτῶνα, “tunic,” 
of the Canonical Gospel, the word μαφόριον, “ hood.” 

There are other passages identical with, or almost 
identical with, the received text in St. Matthew’s Gospel, 
which it is not necessary to enter upon separately. 

They are: Matt. v. 3, 8, 17, 18, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 
vi. 8, 13, vii. 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, vii. 11, 24, 25, 26, 
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, ix. 13, x 28, 34; xi). 25, 27280 
26:34, 4; xii 1' 739, κα. 13) xvi. 18, 8 τα ee 
xxii. 2, 32, xxiii, 25, xxiv. 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, xxv. 41. 
In all, some fifty-five verses, almost and often quite the 
same as in St. Matthew’s Gospel. 

There is just one text supposed to be taken from St. 
Mark’s Gospel, four from St. Luke’s, and two from St. 
John’s. But I do not think we are justified in con- 
cluding that these quotations are taken from the three 
last-named Canonical Gospels. That they are not taken 


1 Homil. i,°61) = 3. 706... ma, 2: 

3 Ibid. viii. 21. Inthe Hebrew SF), rendered by the LXX. φοβηθήση. 
The word in St. Matthew is προσκυνήσεις. 

4 Ibid. xv. 5. . 


THE CLEMENTINE GOSPEL. 215 


from St. Luke we may be almost certain, for that Gospel 
was not received by the Judaizing Christians. When 
we examine the passages, the probability of their being 
quotations from the Canonical Gospels disappears. 

We find, “ He, the true Prophet, said, I am the gate of 
life; he that entereth through me entereth into life.” } 
The words in St. John’s Gospel are, “I am the door: by 
me if any man enter in, he shall be saved.” ? The idea 
is the same, but the mode of expression is different. 

“ Again he said, My sheep hear my voice.” ὃ 

The quotation from St. Mark is too brief for us to be 
able to form any well-founded opinion upon it. It is 
this : “ But to those who were misled to imagine many 
gods, as the Scriptures say, he said, Hear, O Israel ; the 
Lord your God 1s one Lord.” * 

No prejudice would exist among the Ebionites against 
the Gospel of St. Mark, but the Christology of the 
Johannine Gospel, its doctrine of the Logos, would not 
accord with their low views of Christ. The Ebionites 
who denied the Godhead of Jesus could hardly acknow- 
ledge as canonical a Gospel which contained the words, 
“ And the Word was with God, and the Word was 
God.” 











Hom. xix. 22. 

“Our Masterreplied to those 
who asked him concerning 
him that was born blind, and 
to whom he restored sight, if 
it was he or his parents who 
had sinned, in that he was 
born blind. 1 is not that he 
hath sinned in anywise, nor 
his parents ; but in order that 


1 Homil. 111, 52. 
3 Homil. iii, 52; οἵ, John x. 16. 


JOHN ix. 1—3. 

“ And as Jesus passed by, 
he saw a man which was 
blind from his birth. 

“And his disciples asked 
him, saying, Master, who did 
sin, this man, or his parents, 
that he was born blind ? 

“ Jesus answered, Neither 
hath this man sinned, nor his 


2 John x. 9. 
4 Ibid. iii. 57; Mark xii, 29. 


210 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS, 


the power of God may be ma- parents: but that the works 
nifested, who healeth sins of of God should be made mani- 
ignorance.” 1 fest in him.” 


The resemblance is striking. Nevertheless I do not 
think we have a right to conclude that this passage in 
the Clementine Homilies is necessarily a. citation from 
St. John. 

The text is quoted in connection with the peculiar 
Ebionite doctrine of seasons and days already alluded 
to. When our Lord says that he heals the sins of igno- 
rance, he is made in the Clementine Gospel to assert 
that the blindness of the man was the result of disregard 
by his parents of the new moons and sabbaths, not wil- 
fully, but through ignorance. “The afflictions you men- 
tioned,” says St. Peter in connection with this quotation, 
“are the result of ignorance, but assuredly not of wicked- 
ness. Give me the man who sins not, and I will show 
you the man who suffers not.” 

But though this is the interpretation put on the words 
of our Lord by the Clementine Ebionite, it by no means 
flows naturally from them; it is rather wrung out of 
them. 

The words, I think, mean that the blindness of the 
man is symbolical; its mystical meaning is ignorance. 
Our Lord by opening the eyes of the blind exhibits him- 
self as the spiritual enlightener of mankind. He is come 
to unclose men’s eyes to the true light that he sheds 
abroad in the world. 

In St. John’s Gospel, after having declared that blind- 
ness was not the punishment of sin in the man or his 


1 Homi. ix. 27. Joan, ix. 3. 

Οὔτε οὗτος τι ἥμαρτεν, ovTE οἱ Οὔτε οὗτος ἥμαρτεν, οὗτε οἱ 
γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ov αὐτοῦ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθῇ 
φανερωθῇ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς τα ἔργα τοῦ VE ὕ ἐν αὐτῷ. 
ates <5) fe : 
ἀγνοίας ἰωμένη τὰ ἁμαρτήματα. 


THE CLEMENTINE GOSPEL. 217 


parents, our Lord continues, “I must work the works of 
Him that sent me, while it is day; the night cometh, 
when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, 
Τ am the light of the world.” 

Put this last declaration in connection with the say- 
ing, “I am come to heal the sins of ignorance,” and the 
connection of ideas is at once apparent. The blindness 
of the man is symbolical of the ignorance of the world. 
“T am the light of the world, and I have come to dispel 
the darkness of the ignorance of the world.” And so 
saying, “he spat on the ground, and made clay of the 
spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with 
the clay.” 

A few important words in Christ’s teaching had 
escaped the memory of St. John. But they had been 
noted down by some other apostle, and the recollections 
of the latter were embodied in the Gospel in use among 
the Ebionites. 

The texts resembling passages in St. Luke are four, 
but all of them are found in St. Matthew’s Gospel as 
well. 

“ Blessed is that man whom his Lord shall appoint to 
the ministry of his fellow-servants.” * 

“The Queen of the South shall rise wp with thas genera- 
tion, and shall condemn it; because she came from the 
extremities of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon ; 
and behold, a greater than Solomon is here, and ye do not 
believe him. 

“ The men of Nineveh shall rise up with this generation 
and shall condemn it, for they heard and repented at the 
preaching of Jonas: and behold, a greater is here, and no 
one believes.” * 


1 Homil. iii. 64 ; cf. Luke xii. 43, but also Matt. xxiv. 46., 


2 Ibid. xi. 88 ; cf. Luke xi, 31, 32, but also Matt. xii, 42, 41. The 
order in Matt. reversed. 


L 


218 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


The compiler of St. Matthew’s Gospel had this striking 
passage in an imperfect condition. St. Luke had it with 
both its members. So had also the compiler of the 
Clementine Gospel. The wording is not exactly identi- 
cal with that in St. Luke, but the difference is not mate- 
rial. “Yedo not believe him,” “ And no one believes,” 
exist in the Ebionite, not in the Canonical text. 

“ For without the will of God, not even a sparrow can 
fall into a gin. Thus even the hairs of the righteous are 
numbered by God.” + 


1 Homil, xii. 31; cf. Matt. x. 29, 30; Luke xii. 6, 7. 


Tee 
THE GOSPEL OF ST. PETER. 


SERAPION, Bishop of Antioch, in 190, on entering his 
‘see, learned that there was a Gospel attributed to St. 
Peter read in the sacred services of the church of Rhosus, 
in Cilicia. Taking it for granted, as he says, that all in 
his diocese held the same faith, without perusing this 
Gospel, he sanctioned its use, saying, “If this be the 
only thing that creates difference among you, let it be 
read.” 

But he was speedily made aware that this Gospel 
was not orthodox in its tendency. It favoured the 
opinions of the Docete. It was whispered that if it had 
_ an apostolic parentage, it had heretical sponsors. Sera- 
pion thereupon borrowed the Gospel, read it, and found 
it was even as had been reported. “ Peter,’ said he, 
“we receive with the other apostles as Christ himself,” 
but this Gospel was, if not apocryphal as to its facts, 
at all events heretical as to its teaching. 

Thereupon Serapion, regretting his precipitation in © 
sanctioning the use of the Gospel, wrote a book upon it, 
“in refutation of its false assertions.” + 

This book unfortunately has been lost, so that we are 
not able to learn much more about the Gospel. What ᾿ 
was its origin? Was it a forgery from beginning to 
end? This is by no means probable. | 

The Gospel of St. Mark, as we have seen, was due to 
St. Peter, and by some went by the name of the Gospel 

1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 12. 
L 2 


220 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


jof St. Peter. It was a Gospel greatly affected by the 
|Docete and Elkesaites. “Those who distinguish Jesus 
| from Christ, and who say that Christ was impassible, 
| but that Jesus endured the sufferings of his passion, 
prefer the Gospel of Mark,” says Irenzeus.? 

It was likely that they should prefer it, for it began at 
the baptism, and this event it stated, or was thought to 
state, was the beginning of the Gospel; to Docetic minds 
an admission, an assertion rather, that all that preceded 
was of no importance; Jesus was but a man as are other 
men, till the plenitude of the Spirit descended on him. 
The early history might be matter of curiosity, but not 
of edification. 

That matter is evil is a doctrine which in the East 
has proved the fertile mother of heresies. Those infected 
with this idea—and it is an idea, like Predestinarianism, 
which, when once accepted and assimilated, pervades the 
whole tissue of belief and determines its form and com- 
plexion—could not acknowledge frankly and with con- 
viction the dogma of the Incarnation. That God should 
have part with matter, was as opposed to their notions 
as a concord of light with darkness. Carried by the 
current setting strongly that way, they found themselves 
landed in Christianity. They set to work at once to 
mould Christianity in accordance with their theory of 
the inherent evil in matter. Christ, an emanation from 
the Pleroma, the highest, purest wave that swept from 
the inexhaustible fountain of Deity, might overshadow, 
but could not coalesce with, the human Jesus. The 
nativity and the death of our Lord were repugnant to 
their consciences. They evaded these facts by con- 
sidering that he was born and died as man, but that the 


1 “Qui Jesum separant a Christo et impassibilem perseverasse Christum, 
passum vero Jesum dicunt, id quod secundum Marcum est preeferunt Evan- 
gelium.”’—Iren. adv. Heres. iii. 2. The Greek is lost. 


THE GOSPEL OF ST. PETER. 20 


bright overshadowing cloud of the Divinity, of the Christ, 
reposed on him for a brief period only; it descended at 
the baptism, it withdrew before the passion. 

Such were the party—they were scarcely yet a sect— 
who used the Gospel of St. Peter. Was this Gospel a 
corrupted edition of St. Mark? Probably not. We have 
not much ground on which to base an opinion, but there 
is just sufficient to make it likely that such was not the 
case. 

To the Docete, the nativity of our Lord was purely 
indifferent; it was not in their Gospel; that it was 
miraculous they would not allow. To admit that Christ 
was the Son of God when born of Mary, was to abandon 
their peculiar tenets. It was immaterial to them whether 
Jesus had brothers and sisters, or whether James and 
Jude were only his cousins. The Canonical Gospels 
speak of the brothers and sisters of Christ, and we are 
not told that they were not the children of Mary.1 When 
the Memorabilia were committed to writing, there was 
no necessity for doing so. The relationship was known 
to every one. Catholics, maintaining the perpetual vir- ~ 
einity of the mother of Jesus, asserted that they were 


children of Joseph by a former wife, or cousins. The! 


Gospel of St. Peter declared them to be the children of 
Joseph by an earlier marriage. Origen says, “There are 
persons who assure us that the brothers of Jesus were 
the sons whom Joseph had by his first wife, before he 
married Mary. They base their opinion on either the 
Gospel entitled the Gospel of Peter, or on the Book of 
James (the Protevangelium).’”? 

Such a statement would not have been intruded into 
the Gospel by the Docetz, as it favoured no doctrine of 


1 Matt. xii. 47, 48, xiii. 55; Mark iii. 32 ; Luke viii. 20; John vii. 5. 


2 Origen, Comment. in Matt. c. ix. 


Φ LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


theirs. It must therefore have existed in the Gospel 
before it came into their hands. 

We know how St. Mark’s Gospel was formed. After 
the death of his master, the evangelist compiled all the 
fragmentary “ Recollections ” of St. Peter concerning our 
Lord. But these recollections had before this circulated 
throughout the Church. We have evidence of this in 
the incorporation of some of them into the Gospels of 
St. Matthew and St. Luke. Others, besides St. Mark, 
may have strung these fragments together. One such 
tissue would be the Gospel of St. Peter. It did not, 
perhaps, contain as many articles as that of St. Mark, 
but it was less select. Like those of St. Matthew and 
St. Luke, on the thread were probably strung memora- 
bilia of other apostles and disciples, but also, perhaps, 
some of questionable authority. 

This collection was in use at Rhosus. It may have 
been in use there since apostolic days; perhaps it was 
compiled by some president of the church there. But 
it had not been suffered to remain without interpolations 
which gave it a Docetic character. 

Its statement of the relationship borne by the “ brothers 
and sisters” to our Lord is most valuable, as it is wholly 
unprejudiced and of great antiquity. The Gospel, held 
in reverence as sacred in the second century at Rhosus, 
was probably brought thither when that church was 
founded, not perhaps in a consecutive history, but in 
paragraphs. The church was a daughter of the church 
of Antioch, and therefore probably founded by a disciple 
of St. Peter. 


IV. 
THE GOSPEL OF THE EGYPTIANS. 


THE Gospel known by this name is mentioned by 
several of the early Fathers! It existed in the second 
half of the second century; and as it was then in use 
and regarded as canonical by certain Christian sects, it 
must have been older. We shall not be far out if we 
place its composition at the beginning of the second 
century. 

To form an idea of its tendency, we must have re- 
course to two different sources, the second, Epistle of 
Clemens Romanus, the author of which seems to have 
made use of no other Gospel than that of the Egyptians, 
and Clement of Alexandria, who quotes three passages 
from it, and refutes the theories certain heretics of his 
time derived from them. 

The second Epistle of St. Clement of Rome is a 
Judaizing work, as Schneckenburg has proved incon- 
testably.2 It is sufficient to remark that the Chiliast 
belief which transpires in more than one place, the 
analogy of ideas and of expressions which it bears to the 
Clementine Homilies, and finally the selection of Cle- 
ment of Rome, a personage as dear to the Ebionites as 
the apostles James and Peter, to place the composition 
under his venerated name, are as many indications of 


1 πὸ αἰγύπτιον Ἑὐαγγέλιον ; Epiphan. Heres. lxii. 2; Evangelium 
secundum Agyptios; Origen, Hom. i. inluc.; Evangelium juxta Agyptios ; 
Hieron. Prolog. in Comm. super Matth. 

2 Schneckenburg, Ueber das Evangelium der Mgypter; Berne, 1834. 


224 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


the Judeo-Christian character and origin of this apocry- 
phal work. 

The Gospel cited by the author of this Epistle, except 
in two or three phrases which are not found in any 
of our Canonical Gospels, recalls that of St. Matthew. 
Nevertheless, it is certain that the quotations are from 
the Gospel of the Egyptians, for one of the passages cited 
in this Epistle is also quoted by Clement of Alexandria, 
who tells us whence it comes—from the Egyptian 
Gospel. We may conclude from this that the Gospel 
of the Egyptians presented great analogy to our first 
Canonical Gospel, without being identical with it, and 
consequently that it was related closely to the Gospel of 
the Hebrews. 

If the second Epistle of Clement of Rome determines 
for us the family to which this Gospel belonged, the 
passages we shall extract from the Stromata of Clement 
of Alexandria will determine its order. There are three 
of these passages, and very curious ones they are. 

The first is cited by both Clement of Rome and 
Clement of Alexandria, by one more fully than by the 
other. 

“The Lord, having been asked by Salome when lis 
kingdom would come, replied, When you shall have 
trampled under foot the garnent of shame, when two shall 
be one, when that which is without shall be like that which 
is within, and when the male with the female shall be 
neither male nor female,” + 


1 CLEMENT oF ALEXANDRIA. ~ CLemMENT oF Rome. 
Stromat. 111, 12. 2 Epist. c. 12. 
Πυνθανομένης τῆς Σαλωμῆς πότε Ἔπερωτηθείς γὰρ αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος 


γνωσθήσεται τὰ περὶ ὧν ἥρετο, ἔφη ὑπὸ τινος πότε ἥξει αὐτοῦ ἡ βα- 
ὁ κύριος᾽ ὅταν τὸ τῆς αἰσχύνης σιλεία ; bray ἔσται τὰ δύο ἕν, καὶ 
ἔνδυμα πατήσητε, καὶ ὅταν γένηται τὸ ἔξω ὡς ἔσω, καὶ τὸ ἄρσεν μετὰ 
τὰ δύο ἕν, καὶ τὸ ἄῤῥεν μετὰ τῆς τῆς θηλείας οὔτε ἄρσεν οὔτε θῆλυ. 
θηλείας οὔτε ἄῤῥεν οὔτε θῆλυ. 


GOSPEL OF THE EGYPTIANS. 225 


The explanation of this singular passage by Clement 
of Rome is, “Two shall be one when we are truthful 
with each other, and when in two bodies there will be 
but one soul, without dissimulation and without dis- 
guise. That which is without is the body; that which 
is within is the soul. Just as your body appears ex- 
ternally, so should your soul manifest itself by good 
works.” The explanation of the last member of the 
phrase is wanting, as the Epistle has not come down to 
us entire. 

But this is certainly not the real meaning of the pas- 
sage. Its true signification is to be found in the blood- 
less, passionless exaltation at which the ascetic aimed 
who held all matter to be evil, the body to be a clog to 
the soul, marriage to be abominable, meats to be ab- 
stained from. It points to that condition as one of per- 
fection in which the soul shall forget her union with the 
body, and, sexless and ethereal, shall be supreme. 

It was in this sense that the heretics took it. Julius 
Cassianus, “chief of the sect of the Docete,”+ invoked 
this text against the union of the sexes. This interpre- 
tation manifestly embarrassed St. Clement of Alexan- 
dria, and he endeavours to escape from the difficulty 
by weakening the authority of the text. 

He does this by pointing out that the saying of our 
Lord is found only in the Gospel of the Egyptians, and 
not in those four generally received. But as Julius Cas- 
sianus appealed at the same time to a saying of St. ᾿ 
Paul, the authenticity of which was not to be contested, 
the Alexandrine doctor did not consider that he could 
avoid discussing the question ; and he gives, on his side, 
an interpretation of the saying of Jesus in the Apocryphal 
Gospel, and of that of St. Paul, associated with it by 
Julius Cassianus. The words of St. Paul quoted by the 


2 Ὅ τῆς δοκήσεως tEdoxywy.—Stromat. 111, 13. 


BS 


220 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


heretic were those in Galatians (iii. 28): “There is 
neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, male or 
female.” Cassianus paid no regard to the general sense 
of the passage, which is, that the privileges of the gospel 
are common to all of every degree and nation and sex, 
but fastening on the words “neither male nor female,” 
contended that this was a prohibition of marriage. St. 
Clement pays every whit as little regard to the plain 
sense of the passage, and gives the whole an absurd 
mystic signification, as far removed from the thought 
of the apostle as the explanation of Julius Cassianus. 
“By male,’ says he, “understand anger, folly. By 
female understand lust; and when these are carried out, 
the result is penitence and shame.” 

It has been thought that the words “when two shall 
be one” recall the philosophic doctrine of the Pytha- 
goreans on the subject of numbers and the dualism 
which was upheld by many of the Gnostics. St. Mark, 
according to Irenzeus, taught that everything had sprung 
out of the monad and dyad.t_ But it is not so. The 
teaching was not philosophic, but practical. It may be 
thus paraphrased: “The kingdom of heaven shall have 
come when the soul shall have so broken with the pas- 
sions and feelings of the body, that it will no longer be 
sensible of shame. The body will be lost in the soul, 
so that the two shall become one; the body which is 
without shall be like the soul within, and the male with 
the female shall be insensible to passion.” 

It was a doctrine which infected whole bodies of men 
later: the independence of the soul from the body led 
to wild asceticism and frantic sensuality running hand 
in hand. Holding this doctrine, the Fraticelli in the 
thirteenth century flung themselves into the most fiery 
temptations, placed themselves in the most perilous 

1 Adv. Heres. i. 11. 


GOSPEL OF THE EGYPTIANS. ~ Ὁ 





positions ; if they fell, it mattered not, the soul was not 
stained by the deeds of the body; if they remained un- 
moved, the body was indeed mastered, “the two had 
become one.” 

The garment of shame is to be trampled under foot. 
Julius Cassianus explains this singular expression. It 
is the apron of skins wherewith our first parents were 
clothed, when they blushed at their nakedness. They 
blushed because they were in sin ; when men and women 
shall cease to blush at their nudity, then they have 
attained to the spiritual condition of unfallen man. 

We see in embryo the Adamites of the Middle Ages, 
the Anabaptists of the Reformation. 

But the garment of skin has a deeper signification. 
Philo taught that it symbolized the human body that 
clothed the nakedness of the spirit. Gnosticism caught 
at the idea. Unfallen man was pure spirit. Man had 
fallen, and his fall consisted in being clothed in flesh. 
This garment of skin must be trodden under foot, that 
the soul may arise above it, be emancipated from its 
bonds. 

The second passage is quite in harmony with the first : 
“Salome having asked how long men should die, the Lord 
answered and said, As long as you women continue to 
bear children2 Then she said, I have done well, I have 
never borne a child. The Lord answered, Hat of every 
herb, but not of that containing in itself bitterness.” ὃ 

Cassian appealed to this text also in proof that mar- 


1 «Ad mentem vero tunica pellicea symbolice est pellis naturalis, id 
est corpus nostrum. Deus enim intellectum condens primum, vocavit 
illum Adam; deinde sensum, cui vite (Eva) nomen dedit; tertio ex 
necessitate corpus quoque facit, tunicam pelliceam illud per symbolum 
dicens. Oportebat enim ut intellectus et sensus velut tunica cutis in- 
duerent corpus.”—Philo: Quest. et Solut. in Gen. i. 53, trans. from the 
Armenian by J. B. Aucher; Venice, 1826, 


2 Clem. Alex. Stromat. ili. 6. 3 Thid. 9. 


228 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


riage was -forbidden. But Clement of Alexandria re- 
fused to understand it in this sense. He is perhaps 
right when he argues that the first answer of our Lord 
means, that as long as there are men born, so long men 
will die. But the meaning of the next answer entirely 
escapes him. When our Lord says, “ Eat of every herb 
save that in which is bitterness,” he means, says Clement, 
that marriage and continence are left to our choice, and 
that there is no command one way or the other; man 
may eat of every tree, the tree of celibacy, or the tree 
of marriage, only he must abstain from the tree of evil. 

But this is not what was meant. Under a figurative 
expression, the writer of this passage conveyed a warn- 
ing against marriage. Death is the fruit of birth, birth 
is the fruit of marriage. Abstain from eating of the 
tree of marriage, and death will be destroyed. 

That this is the real meaning of this remarkable say- 
ing is proved conclusively by another extract from the 
Gospel of the Egyptians, also made by Clement of 
Alexandria; it is put in the mouth of our Lord. “1 
am come to destroy the works of the woman; of the woman, 
that is, of concuprscence, whose works are generation and 
death.” This quotation bears on the face of it marks 
of having been touched and explained by a later hand. 
“Of the woman,—that is, concupiscence, whose works 
are generation and death,” are a gloss added by an 
Encratite, which was adopted into the text received 
among the Egyptian Docetz. The words, “I am come 
to destroy the works of the woman,” 1.6. Eve, may have 
been spoken by our Lord. By Eve came sin and death 
into the world, and these works Christ did indeed come 
to destroy. 

But the gloss, as is obvious, alters the meaning of the 
saying. The woman is no longer Eve, but womankind 


1 Clem. Alex. Stromat. iii. 9. 


GOSPEL OF THE EGYPTIANS. 229 
in general ; and by womankind, that is, by concupiscence, 
generation and death exist. 

Clement of Alexandria was incapable of seizing the 
plain meaning of these words. He says, “The Lord 
has not deceived us, for he has indeed destroyed the 
works of concupiscence, viz. love of money, of strife, 
glory, of women ... . now the birth of these vices 
is the death of the soul, for we die indeed by our 
sins.” 

We must look to Philo for the key. The woman, 
Eve, means, as he says, the sense ; Adam, the intellectual 
spirit. The union of soul and body is the degradation 
of the soul, the fertile parent of corruption and death. 
Out of Philo’s doctrine grew a Manicheanism in the 
Christian community before Manes was born. 

The work of Jesus was taught to be the emancipation 
of the soul, the rational spirit, Νοῦς, from the restraints 
of the body, its restoration to its primitive condition. 
Death would cease when the marriage was dissolved 
that held the spirit fettered in the prison-house of flesh. 

Philonian philosophy remained vigorous at Alexan- 
dria in the circle of enlightened Jews. It struck deep 
root, and blossomed in the Christian Church. 

A Gospel, which we do not know—it may have been 
- that of Mark—was brought into Egypt. The author of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, an Epistle clearly addressed 
to the Alexandrine Jews, prepared their minds to fuse 
Philonism with Christianity. We see its influence in 
the Gospel of St. John. That evangelist adopted Philo’s 
doctrine of the Logos; the author of the Gospel of the 
Egyptians, that of the bondage of the spirit in matter. 


1 ‘ Sensus, que symbolice mulier est.” —Philo: Quest. et Solut. i, 52. 
‘‘Generatio ut sapientum fert sententia, corruptionis est principium.”— 
Ibid. 10. 


230 LOST PETRINE GOSPELS. 


The conceptions contained in the three passages which 
Clement of Alexandria has preserved are closely united. 
They all are referable to a certain theosophy, the expo- 
sition of which is to be found in the writings of Philo, 
and which may be in vain sought elsewhere at that 
period. Not only are there to be found here the theo- 
sophic system of the celebrated Alexandrine Jew, but 
also, what is a still clearer index of the source whence 
the Egyptian Gospel drew its mystic asceticism, we find 
the quaint expressions and forms of speech which be- 
longed to Philo, and to none but him. No one but 
Philo had thought to find in the first chapters of Genesis 
the history of the fall of the soul into the world of sense, 
and to make of Eve, of the woman, the symbol of the 
human body, and starting from this to explain how the 
soul could return to its primitive condition, purely 
spiritual, by shaking off the sensible to which in its 
present state it is attached. When we shall have 
trampled under foot our tunics of skins wherewith we 
have been covered since the fall, this garment, given to 
us because we were ashamed of our nakedness,—when 
the body shall have become lke the soul,—when the 
union of the soul with the body, 1.6. of the male and the 
female, shall exist no more,—when the woman, that is 
the body, shall be no more productive, shall no more 
produce generation and death—when its works are de- 
stroyed, then we shall not die any more; we’ shall be as 
we were before our fall, pure spirits; and this will be 
the kingdom of the Lord. And to prepare for this trans- 
formation, what is to be done? Eat of every herb, 
nourish ourselves on the fruit of every tree of paradise, 
—that is, cultivate the soul, and not occupy it with 
anything but that which will make it live; but abstain 
from the herb of bitterness,—the tree of the knowledge 


GOSPEL OF THE EGYPTIANS. 251 





of good and evil, that is——reject all that can weave closer 
the links binding the soul to the body, retain it in its 
prison, its grave. | 

It is easy to see how Philonian ideas continued to 
exert their influence in Egypt, when absorbed into 
Christianity. It was these ideas which peopled the 
deserts of Nitria and Scete with myriads of monks 
wrestling with their bodies, those prison-houses of their 
souls, struggling to die to the world of matter, that 
their ethereal souls might shake themselves free. Their 
spirits were like moths in a web, bound by silken 
threads; the spirit would be choked by these fetters, 
unless it could snap them and sail away. 


1 Nicolas: Etudes sur les Evangiles apocryphes, pp. 128—130. M. 
Nicolas was the first to discover the intimate connection that existed 
between the Gospel of the Egyptians and Philonian philosophy. 

The relation in which Philo stood to Christian theology has ποὺ as yet, 
so far as 1 am aware, been thoroughly investigated. Dionysius the Areo- 
pagite, the true father of Christian theosophy, derives his ideas and termino- 
logy from Philo. Aquinas developed Dionysius, and on the Summa of the 
Angel of the Schools Catholic theology has long reposed. 





PARLE 1], 


THE LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


Under this head are classed such Gospels as have a distinct 
anti-Judaizing, Antinomian tendency. They were in use among 
the Churches of Asia Minor, and eventually found their way into 
Egypt. 

This class may probably be subdivided into those which bore 
a strong affinity to the Canonical Gospel of St. Luke, and those 
which were independent compilations. 


To the first class belongs— 
1. The Gospel of the Lord. 


To the second class— 


1. The Gospel of Eve. 

2. The Gospel of Perfection. 
3. The Gospel of Philip. 

4, The Gospel of Judas. 





PART) TE 


THE LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


I. 
THE GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 


THE Gospel of the Lord, "EvayyéAvov τοῦ Κυρίου, was 
the banner under which the left of the Christian army 
marched, as the right advanced under that of the Gospel 
of the Hebrews. 

The Gospel of the Lord was used by Marcion, and 
apparently before him by Cerdo. 

In opposition to Ebionitism, with its narrow restraints 
and its low Christology, stood an exclusive Hellenism. 
Ebionitism saw in Jesus the Son of David, come to τθ-- 
edit the Law, to provide it with new sanction, after he 
had winnowed the chaff from the wheat in it. Mar- 
cionism looked to the Atonement, the salvation wrought 
by Christ for all mankind, to the revelation of the truth, 
the knowledge (γνῶσις) of the mysteries of the Godhead 
made plain to men, through God the good and merciful, 
who sent His Son to bring men out of ignorance into 


1 Tert, De prescr. heretica, ὁ, 51. “Cerdon solum Luce Evangelium, 
nec tamen totum recipit.” 


236 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


light, out of the bondage of the Law into the freedom of 
the Gospel. 

The Gospel, in the eyes of Marcion and the extreme 
followers of St. Paul, represented free grace, overflowing 
goodness, complete reconciliation with God. 

But such goodness stood contrasted with the stern 
justice of the Creator, as revealed in the books of the 
Old Testament ; infinite, unconditioned forgiveness was 
incompatible with the idea of God as a Lawgiver and a 
Judge. The restraint of the Law and the freedom of 
the Gospel could no more emanate from the same source 
than sweet water and bitter. 

Therefore the advanced Pauline party were led on to 
regard the God who is revealed in the Old Testament 
as a different God from the God revealed by Christ. 
Cerdo first, and Marcion after him, represented the God 
of this world, the Demiurge, to be the author of evil; 
but the author of evil only in so far as that his nature 
being incomplete, his work was incomplete also. He 
created the world, but the world, partaking in his im- 
perfection, contains evil mixed with good. He created 
the angel-world, and part of it, through defect in the 
divinity of their first cause, fell from heaven. 

The germs of this doctrine, it was pretended, were to 
be found in St. Paul’s Epistles. In the second to the 
Corinthians, after speaking of the Jews as blinded to 
the revelation of the Gospel by the veil which is on 
their faces, the apostle says: “The God of this world 
hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest 
the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the 

1 For an account of the doctrines of Marcion, the authorities are, The 
Apologies of Justin Martyr ; Tertullian’s treatise against Marcion, i.—v.; 
Trenzus against Heresies, i. 28 ; Epiphanius on Heresies, xlii. 1—3; and 
a “Dialogus de recta in Deum fide,” printed with Origen’s Works, in the 


edition of De la Rue, Paris, 1733, though not earlier than the fourth 
century. 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 237 


image of God, should shine unto them.”! St. Paul had 
no intention of representing the God of the Jews who 
veiled their eyes as opposed to Christ; but it is easy 
to see how readily those who followed his doctrine of 
antagonism between the Law and the Gospel would be 
led to suppose that he did identify the God of the Law 
with the principle of obstructiveness and of evil. 

So also St. Paul’s teaching that sin was produced by 
the Law, that it had no positive existence, but was called 
into being by the imposition of the Commandments, 
lent itself with readiness to Marcion’s system. “The 
Law entered, that the offence might abound.’? “The 
motions of sins are by the Law.”? “I had not known 
sin, but by the Law: for I had not known lust, except 
the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”’* 

This Law, imposed by the God of the Jews, is then 
the source of sin. It is imposed, not on the spirit, but 
on the flesh. In opposition to it stands the revelation 
of Jesus Christ, which repeals the Law of the Jews. 
“The Law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath 
made me free from the law of sin and death.”® “There- 
fore we conclude that a man is justified without the 
deeds of the Law.”® “ Before faith came, we were kept 
under the Law, shut up unto the faith which should 
afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the Law was our 
schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be 
justified by faith; but after that faith 1s come, we are 
no longer under a schoolmaster.”” 

We find in St. Paul’s writings all the elements of 
Marcion’s doctrine, but not compacted into a system, 
because St. Paul never had worked out such a theory, 


1 1 Cor. iv. 4. 2 Rom. v. 20. 
3 Rom. vi. 5. 4 Rom. vii. 7. 
5 Rom. viii. 2. 6 Rom. iii. 28. 


7. Gal, 111, 283—25. 


938 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


and would have shrunk from the conclusions which 
might be drawn from his words, used in the heat of 
argument, for the purpose of opposing an error, not of 
establishing a dogmatic theory. 

The whole world lay, according to Marcion, under the 
dispensation of the Demiurge, and therefore under a 
mixed government of good and evil. To the Jewish 
nation this Demiurge revealed himself. His revelation 
was stern, uncompromising, imperfect. Then the high- 
est God, the God of love and mercy, who stood opposed 
to the inferior God, the Creator, the God of justice and 
severity, sent Jesus Christ for the salvation of all (ad 
salutem omnium gentium) to overthrow and destroy 
(arguere, redarguere, ἐλέγχειν, καταλεύειν) “the Law and 
the Prophets,” the revelation of the world-God, the God 
of the Jews. 

The highest God, whose realm and law were spiritual, 
had been an unknown God (deus ignotus) till Christ 
came to reveal Him. The God of this world and of the 
Jews had a carnal realm, and a law which was also 
carnal. They formed an antithesis, and true Christianity 
consisted in emancipation from the carnal law. The 
created world under the Demiurge was bad; matter was 
evil; spirit alone was pure. Thus the chain unrolled, 
and lapsed into Manicheism. Cerdo and Marcion stood 
in the same relation to Manes that Paul stood in to 
them. Manichzism was not yet developed; it was de- 
veloping. 

Gnosticism, with easy impartiality, affected Ebionitism 
on one side and Marcionism on the other, intensifying 
their opposition. It was like oxygen combining here to 
form an alkali, there to generate an acid. 

The God of love, according to Marcion, does not 
punish. His dealings with man are all benevolence, 
communication of free grace, bestowal of ready forgive- 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 239 





ness. For if sin be merely violation of the law of the 
God of this world, it is indifferent to the highest God, 
who is above the Demiurge, and regards not his vexatious 
restrictions on the liberty of man. 

Yet Marcion was not charged by his warmest anta- 
gonists with immorality. They could not deny that 
the Marcionites entirely differed from other Pauline 
Antinomians in their moral conduct—that, for example, 
in their abhorrence of heathen games and pastimes they 
τ came fully up to the standard of the most rigid Catholic 
Christians. While many of the disciples of St. Paul, 
who held that an accommodation with prevailing errors 
was allowable, that no importance was to be attached 
to externals, found no difficulty in evading the obli- 
gation to become martyrs, the Marcionites readily, fear- 
lessly, underwent the interrogations of the judges and 
the tortures of the executioner.’ 

Marcion, there is no doubt, regarded St. Paul as the 
only genuine apostle, the only one who remained true 
to his high calling. He taught that Christ, after reveal- 
ing himself in his divine power to the God of this world, 
and confounding him unto submission, manifested him- 
self to St. Paul,? and commissioned him to preach the 
gospel. 

He rejected all the Scriptures now accounted canoni- 
eal, except the Epistles of St. Paul, which formed with 
him an “Apostolicon,” in which they were arranged 
in the following order:—The Epistle to the Galatians, 
the First and Second to the Corinthians, the Epistles to 
the Romans, the Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, 
Philemon, and to the Philippians.* 

Besides the Epistles of St. Paul, he made use of an 


1 BRuseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 15, vii. 12. De Martyr. Palest. 10. 
4 Cf, 1 Col. ix. 1, xv. 8; 2 Cor. xii. 
3 Epiphan. Heres, xlii. 11. 


240 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 





original Gospel, which he asserted was the evangelical 
record cited and used by Paul himself. The other Ca- 
nonical Gospels he rejected as corrupted by Judaizers. 

This Gospel bore a close resemblance to that of St. 
Luke. “Marcion,” says Irenzeus, “has disfigured the 
entire Gospel, he has reconstructed it after his own 
fancy, and then boasts that he possesses the true Gos- 
pel.” 

Tertullian assures us that Marcion had cut out of St. 
Luke’s Gospel whatever opposed his own doctrines, and 
retained only what was in favour of them.? This state- 
ment, as we shall see presently, was not strictly true. 

Epiphanius is more precise. He goes most carefully 
over the Gospel used by Marcion, and discusses every 
text which, he says, was modified by the heretic.* 

The charge of mutilating the Canonical Gospels was 
brought by the orthodox Fathers against both the Ebion- 
ites on one side, and the Marcionites and Valentinians 
on the other, because the Gospels they used did not 
exactly agree with those employed by the middle party 
in the Church which ultimately prevailed. But the 
extreme parties on their side made the same charge 
against the Catholics.* It is not necessary to believe 
these charges in every case. 

If the Gospels® were compiled as in the manner I 
have contended they were, such discrepancies must have 
occurred. Every Church had its own collection of the 


1 Tren. adv. Heres. iii. 11. 

2 “Contraria queque sententiz erasit, competentia autem sententiz 
reservarit.”—Tertul. adv. Marcion, iv. 6. 

3 Epiphan, Heres. xlvii. 9—12. 

4 «¢Hgo meum (Evangelium) dico verum, Marcion suum. Ego Marcionis 
affirmo adulteratum, Marcion meum. Quis inter nos disceptabit ?”—Tert. 
adv. Marcion, iv. 4. 

® Not St. John’s Gospel; that is unique ; a biography by an eye-witness, 
not a composition of distinct notices. 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 241 








“Logia” and of the “ Practhenta” of Christ. The more 
voluminous of these collections, those better strung 
together, thrust the earlier, less complete, collections 
into the back-ground. And these collections were con- 
tinually beimg augmented by the acquisition of fresh 
material; and this new material was squeezed into the 
existing text, often without much consideration for the 
chain of story or teaching which it broke and dislocated. 

Marcion was too conscientious and earnest a man wil- 
fully to corrupt a Gospel. He probably brought with 
him to Rome the Gospel in use at Sinope in Pontus, of 
which city, according to one account, his father was 
bishop. The Church in Sinope had for its first bishop, 
Philologus, the friend of St. Paul, if we may trust the 
pseudo-Hippolytus and Dorotheus. It is probable that 
the Church of Sinope, when founded, was furnished by 
St. Paul with a collection of the records of Christ’s life 
and teaching such as he supplied to other “ Asiatic” 
churches. And this collection was, no doubt, made by 
‘his constant companion Luke. 

Thus the Gospel of Marcion may be Luke’s original 
Gospel. But there is every reason to believe that Luke’s 
Gospel went through considerable alteration, probably 
passed through a second edition with considerable addi- 
tions to it made by the evangelist’s own hand, before it 
became what it now is, the Canonical Luke. 

He may have found reason to alter the arrangement 
of certain incidents; to insert whole paragraphs which 
had come to him since he had composed his first rough 
sketch; to change certain expressions where he found a 
difference in accounts of the same sayings, or to combine 
several. 

Moreover, the first edition was published in the full 
heat of the Pauline controversy. Its strong Paulinian- 
ism lies on the surface. But afterwards, when this 

M 


2492 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


excitement had passed away, and the popular miscon- 
ception of Pauline sola-fidianism had become a general 
offence to morals and religion, then Luke came under 
the influence of St. John, and tempered his Gospel by 
adding to it incidents Paul did not care to have inserted 
in the Gospel he wished his converts to receive, or the 
accuracy of which, as disagreeing with his own views, 
he was disposed to question. 

Of this I shall have more to say presently. It is neces- 
sary, in the first place, briefly to show that Marcion’s 
Gospel contained a different arrangement of the narrative 
from the Canonical Luke, and was without many passages 
which it is not possible to believe he wilfully excluded. 
For instance, in Marcion’s Gospel: “And as he entered 
into a certain village, there met him ten men that were 
lepers, which stood afar off: and they lifted up their 
voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. And 
when he saw them, he said unto them, Go, show your- 
selves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that as 
they went, they were cleansed. And many lepers were 
in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet ; and none of 
them was cleansed saving Naaman the Syrian. And one 
of them, when he saw that he was healed,” &. Here 
the order is Luke xvii. 12, 13, 14, iv. 27, xvii.15. Such 
a disturbance of the text in the Canonical Gospel could 
serve no purpose, would not support any peculiar view 
of Marcion, and cannot therefore have been a wilful 
alteration. And in the first chapter of Marcion’s Gospel 
this is the sequence of verses whose parallels in St. Luke 
are: iii. 1, iv. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 16, 20, 
21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 30, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44. 

Thus the order of events is different in the two Gos- 
pels. Christ goes first to Capernaum in the “Gospel of 
the Lord,’ and afterwards to Nazareth, an inversion of 
the order as given in the Gospel of St. Luke. Again, in 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 243 





this instance, no purpose was served by this transpo- 
sition. It is unaccountable on the theory that Marcion 
corrupted the Gospel of Luke; but if we suppose that 
Luke revised the arrangement of his Gospel after its 
first publication, the explanation is simple enough. 

But what is far more conclusive of the originality of 
Marcion’s Gospel is, that his Gospel was without several 
passages which occur in St. Luke, and which do appa- 
rently favour his views. Such are Luke xi. 51, xiii. 30 
and 34, xx.9—16. These contain strong denunciations 
of the Jews by Jesus Christ, and a positive declara- 
tion that they had fallen from their place as the elect 
people. Marcion insisted on the abrogation of the Old 
Covenant; it was a fundamental point in his system ; 
he would consequently have found in these passages 
powerful arguments in favour of his thesis. He cer- 
tainly would not have excluded them from his Gospel, 
had he tampered with the text, as Ireneus and Ter- 
tullian declare. 

Yet Marcion would not scruple to use the knife upon 
a Gospel that came into his hands, if he found in it 
passages that wholly upset his doctrine of the Demiurge 
and of asceticism. For when the Church was full of 
Gospels, and none were as yet settled authoritatively as 
canonical, private opinion might, unrebuked, choose one 
Gospel and reject the others, or subject any Gospel to 
critical supervision. The manner in which the Gospels 
were composed laid them open to criticism. Any 
Church might hesitate to accept a saying of our Lord, 
and incorporate it with the Gospel with which it was 
acquainted, till satisfied that the saying was a genuine 
apostolic tradition. And how was aChurch to be satisfied ? 
By internal evidence of genuineness, when the apostles 
themselves had passed away. Consequently, each Church 
was obliged to exert its critical faculty in the compo- 

M 2 


244 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


sition of its Gospel. And that the churches did exert 
their judgment freely is evidenced by the mass of 
apocryphal matter which remains, the dross after the 
refining, piled up in the Gospels of Nicodemus, of the 
Infancy of Thomas, and of Joseph the Carpenter. All 
of which was deliberately rejected as resting on no apos- 
tolic authority, as not found in any Church to be read 
at the sacred mysteries, but as mere folk-tales buzzed 
about, nowhere producing credentials of authenticity. 

Marcion, following St. Paul, declared that the Juda- 
izing Church had “ corrupted the word of God,” mean- 
ing such “logia” as, “I am not come to destroy the Law 
or the Prophets.” “Till heaven and earth ‘pass, one 
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, 
till all is fulfilled.”* These texts would naturally find 
no place in the original Pauline Gospels used by the 
Churches he had founded. In St. Luke’s Gospel, accord- 
ingly, the Law and the Prophets are said to have been 
until John, and since then the Gospel, “the kingdom of 
God.”* But the following verse in St. Luke’s Gospel 
is, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one 
tittle of the Law to fail”—a contradiction of the imme- 
diately preceding verse, which declares that the Law 
has ceased with the proclamation of the Gospel. This 
verse, therefore, cannot have existed in its present form 
in the original Gospel of St. Luke, and must have been 
modified when a reconciliation had been effected between 
Petrine and Pauline Christianity. 

It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that the verse 
should read differently in Marcion’s Gospel, which con- 
tains the uncorrupted original passage, and runs thus 
“Tt is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one 


1 2 Cor. ii. 17, and iv. 2. 2 Matt. v. 17, 18. 
5 Luke xvi. 16. 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 245 





tittle of my words to fail;” or perhaps, “ It is easier for 
heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the words of 
the Lord to fail;” for in this instance we have not the 
exact words. 

But though Marcion certainly endured the presence 
of texts in his Gospel which militated against his system, 
he may have cut out other passages. Passages, or words 
only, which he thought had crept into the text without 
authority. This can scarcely be denied when the texts 
are examined which are wanting in his Gospel. No strong 
conservative attachment to any particular Gospels had 
erown up in the Church as yet; no texts had been autho- 
ritatively sanctioned. As late as the end of the second 
century (A.D. 190), the Church of Rhossus was using its . 
own Gospel attributed to Peter, till Serapion, bishop of 
Antioch, thinking that it contained Docetic errors, pro- 
bably because of omissions, suppressed it,? and substi- 
tuted for it, in all probability, one of the more generally 
approved Gospels. 

The Church of Rhossus was neither heretical nor 
schismatical ; it formed part of the Catholic Church, and 
no objection was raised against its use of a Gospel of 
its own, till it was suggested that this Gospel contained 
errors of doctrine. No question was raised whether it 
was an authentic Gospel by Peter or not; the standard 
by which it was measured was the traditional faith of 
the Church. It did not agree with this standard, and 
was therefore displaced. St. Epiphanius and St. Jerome 
assert, probably unjustifiably, that the orthodox did not 
hesitate to amend their Gospels, if they thought there 
were passages in them objectionable or doubtful. Thus 


1 Tert.: ‘*Transeat ccelum et terra citius quam unus apex verborum 
Domini ;” but Tertullian is not quoting directly, so that the words may 
have been, and probably were, τῶν λόγων pov, not των λόγων τοῦ θεοῦ. 

2 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 12; Theod. Fabul. heret. ii. 2. 


240 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


they altered the passage in which Jesus is said to have 
wept over Jerusalem (Luke xix. 41). St. Epiphanius 
frankly tells us so. “The orthodox,” says he, “have 
eliminated these words, urged to it by fear, and not 
feeling either their purpose or force.”* But it is more 
likely that the weeping of Jesus over Jerusalem was 
inserted by Luke in his Gospel at the time of reconcilia- 
tion under St. John, so as to make the Pauline Gospel 
exhibit Jesus moved with sympathy for the holy city, 
the head-quarters of the Law. The passage is not in 
Marcion’s Gospel; and though it is possible he may have 
removed it, it is also possible that he did not find it in 
the Pauline Gospel of the Church at Sinope. 

St. Jerome says that Luke xxu. 43, 44, were also 
eliminated from some copies of the Canonical Gospel. 
“The Greeks have taken the liberty of extracting from 
their texts these two verses, for the same reason that 
they removed the passage in which it is said he wept. 
.... This can only come from superstitious persons, 
who think that Jesus Christ could not have become as 
weak as is represented.” St. Hilary says that these 
verses were not found in many Greek texts, or in some 
Latin ones.? 

But here, also, the assertion of St. Jerome and St. 
Hilary cannot be taken as a statement of fact, but rather 
as a conclusion drawn by them from the fact that all 
copies of the Gospel of St. Luke did not contain these 
two verses. They are wanting in the Gospel of our 
Lord, and may be an addition made to the Gospel of St. 
Luke, after it had been first circulated. There is reason 
to suppose that after St. Luke had written his Gospel, 
additional matter may have been provided him, and 
that he published a second, and enlarged, edition of his 


1 Epiphan. Ancor. 31. 2 Hieron. adv. Pelag, ii. 
3 Hilar. De Trinit, x. 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 247 


Gospel. Thus some Churches would be in possession of 
the first edition, and others of the second, and Jerome and 
Epiphanius, not knowing this, would conclude that those 
in possession of the first had tampered with their text. 

The Gospel of Marcion has been preserved to us 
almost in its entirety. Tertullian regarded Marcionism 
as the most dangerous heresy of his day. He wrote 
against it, and carefully went through the Marcionite 
Gospel to show that it maintained the Catholic faith, 
though it differed somewhat from the Gospel acknow- 
ledged by Tertullian, and that therefore Marcion’s doc- 
trine was untenable.’ He does not charge Marcion with 
having interpolated or curtailed a Canonical Gospel, for 
Marcion was ready to retort the charge against the Gospel 
used by Tertullian.” 

It is not probable that Tertullian passed over any 
passage in the “Gospel of the Lord” which could by 
any means be made to serve against Marcion’s system. 
This is the more probable, because Tertullian twists the 
. texts to serve his purpose which in the smallest degree 
lend themselves to being so treated.? 

St. Epiphanius has gone over much the same ground 
as Tertullian, but in a different manner. He attempts 
to show how wickedly Marcion had corrupted the Word 
of God, and how ineffectual his attempt had been, inas- 
much as passages in his corrupted Gospel served to 
destroy his system. 

With these two purposes he went through the whole 
of the “ Gospel of the Lord,” and accompanied it with a 
string of notes, indicating all the alterations and omis- 


1 ἐς Christus Jesus in evangelio tuo meus est.” 

2 See note 4 on p. 240. 

3 As xix. 10: ‘‘ Filius hominis venit, salvum facere quod periit ... . 
elisa est sententia hereticorum negantium carnis salutem ;—pollicebatur 
(Jesus) totiws hominis salutem.” 


248 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


sions he found in it. Each text from Marcion’s Gospel, 
or Scholion, is accompanied by a refutation. Epipha- 
nius is very particular. He professes to disclose “the 
fraud of Marcion from beginning to end.’ And the 
pains he took to do this thoroughly appear from the 
minute differences between the Gospels which he no- 
tices! At the same time, he does not extract long pas- 
sages entire from the Gospel, but indicates their subject, 
where they agreed exactly with the received text. It 
is possible, therefore, that other slight differences may 
have existed which escaped his eye, but the differences 
can only have been slight. 

The following table gives the contents of the Gospel 
of Marcion. It contains nothing that is not found in 
St. Luke’s Gospel. But some of the passages do not 
agree exactly with the parallel passages in the Canonical 
Gospel. 


THE GOSPEL (To Εὐαγγέλιον). 
Chap. 1.3 


1. Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cesar, 
Pontius Pilate ruling in Judea, Jesus came down to Caper- 
naum, a city of Galilee, and straightway on the Sabbath days, 
going into the synagogue, he taught.* 

2. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word 
was with power. 


1 Sch. 4, ἐν ἀυτῦις for per’ αὐπῶν. Sch. 1, ὑμῖν for αὐτοῖς. Sch. 26, 
κλῆσιν for κρίσιν. Sch. 34, πάτερ for πάτερ ὑμῶν, Xe. 

2 Marcion called his Gospel ‘‘ The Gospel,” as the only one he knew and 
recognized, or ‘‘ The Gospel of the Lord.”’ 

3 The division into chapters is, of course, arbitrary. 

4 Ἔν ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, ἡγεμονεύον- 
τος (St. Luke, ἐπιτροπεύοντος), ἸΤοντίου Πιλάτου τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας, κατῆλθεν 
ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς Καπερναούμ, πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας" καὶ εὐθέως τοῖς σάββασιν 
εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν ἐδίδασκε (St. Luke, καὶ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν 
τοῖς σάββασιν). 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 240 





3. And in the synagogue there was a man, which had 
a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud 
voice, 

4, Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, 
Jesus?! Art thou come to destroy us? J know thee who 
thou art; the Holy One of God. 

5, And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and 
come out of him. And when the devil had thrown him in 
the midst, he came out of him, and hurt him not. 

6. And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, 
saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power 
he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out. 

7. And he arose out of the synagogue,” and entered into 
Simon’s house. And Simon’s wife’s mother was taken with 
a great fever ; and they besought him for her. 

8. And he stood over her, and rebuked the fever, and it 
left her: and immediately she aross and ministered unto 
them. 

9. And the fame of him went out into every place of the 
country round about. 

10. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of 
all? 

11. And he came to Nazareth ;+ and, as his custom was, he 
went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day,° and he began 
to preach to them.® 

12. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious 
words which proceeded out of his mouth.’ 

13. And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me 


1 Ναζαρηνέ omitted. 

2 St. Luke iv. 37 omitted here, and inserted after iv. 39. 

3 Luke iv. 15 inserted here. 

4 οὗ ἣν τεθραμμένος omitted. 

5 ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶναι omitted, and Luke iv. 17—20. 

6 καὶ ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν αὐτοῖς. St. Luke has, Ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν πρὸς 
αὐτούς" ὅτι σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν. 

7 The rest of the verse (22) omitted. 

M 3 


250 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 





this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have 
heard done in Capernaum, do also here. 

14. But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel 
in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years 
and six months, when great famine was throughout the land ; 

15. But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto 
Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. 

16. And many lepers were in the time of Eliseus the pro- 
phet in Israel,? and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman 
the Syrian. 

17. And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these 
things, were filled with wrath, 

18. And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led 
him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, 
that they might cast him down headlong. 

19. But he passing through the midst of them, went his 
way to Capernaum.? 

20. And when the sun was setting, all they that had any 
sick with divers diseases brought them unto him, &c. (as St. 
Luke iv. 40—44). 

Chap. 11. 

Same as St. Luke v. 

Verse 14 differed slightly. For εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς, 
Marcion’s Gospel had ἵνα τοῦτο 7} μαρτύριον ὕμιν, “that 
this may be a testimony to you.” 

Chap. 111. 

Same as St. Luke vi. 

Verse 17, for per αὐτῶν, Marcion read ἐν ἀυτοῖς ; 
“among them” for “with them.” 


Chap. iv, 
Same as St. Luke vii. 
Verses 29—35 omitted. 


1 ἐν τῇ πατρίδι σου omitted. 

2 ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ after ἐπὶ Ἐλισσαίου τοῦ προφήτου. 

* ἐπορεύετο εἰς Καπερναούμ. St. Luke has, ἐπορεύετο καὶ κατῆλθεν 
εἰς Καπερναούμ. 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 251 





Chap. ν. 

Same as St. Luke viii. 

But verse 19 was omitted by Marcion. 

And verse 21 read: “And he answering, said unto 
them, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren 71 
My mother and my brethren are these which hear the 
word of God, and do it.” 

Chap vi. 

Same as St. Luke ix. 

But verse 31 was omitted. 

Chap. vil. 

Same as St. Luke x. 

But verse 21 read: “In that hour he rejoiced in the 
Spirit, and said, I praise and thank thee, Lord of Heaven, 
that those things which were hidden from the wise and 
prudent thou hast revealed to babes: even so, Father ; 
for so it seemed good in thy sight.”? 

And verse 22 ran: “ All things are delivered to me of 
my Father, and no man hath known the Father save 
the Son, nor the Son save the Father, and he to whom 
the Son hath revealed ;”? in place of, “All things are 
delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth 
who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, 
but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.” 

And verse 25: “Doing what shall I obtain life ?” 
“ eternal,” αἰώνιον, being omitted. 

Chap. viii. 

Same as St. Luke xi. 


1 τίς μου ἡ μήτηρ Kai δι ἀδελφοί. 
2 Σ ~ IY ~ x , ? ~ a ou bs 3 
Εὐχαριστῶ και ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, κύριε Tov οὐρανοῦ, ὅτι ἅτινα ἦν 
κρυπτὰ σοφοῖς καὶ συνετοῖς ἀπεκάλυψας, &c. St. Luke has, ἐξομολογοῦμαί 
ς, 9 
~ ~ \ » ~ ~ ? X 
σοι, πάτερ, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, OTL ἀπέκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ 
σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας, &e. 
3 ἠδ \ ” A , 2 ve. εν ὑδὲ κι εὔ , ? \ 
οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς, οὐδὲ TOY υἱόν TLC γινώσκει εἰ μὴ 
ὁ πατήρ, καὶ ᾧ ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψη. 
L 


252 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


But verse 2: “ When ye pray, say, Father, may thy 
Holy Spirit come to us, thy kingdom come,” &c., in 
place of “ Hallowed be thy name.” 

Verse 29: in Marcion’s Gospel it ended, “This is an 
evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no 
sign be given it.” What follows in St. Luke’s Gospel, 
“but the sign of Jonas the prophet,” and verses 30—32, 
were omitted. | 

Verse 42: “ Woe unto you, Pharisees! ye tithe mint 
and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over the 
calling” and the love of God,” &e. 

Verses 49—51 were omitted by Marcion. 


Chap. ix. 

Same as St. Luke xii. 

But verses 6, 7, and “τῶν dyyéAwv” in ὃ and 9 omitted. 

Verse 32 read: “ Fear not, little flock; for it is the 
Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”? 

And verse 38 ran thus: “And if he shall come in 
the evening watch, and find thus, blessed are those 
servants.” 4 


Chap. x. 

Same as St. Luke xiii. 11—28. 

Marcion’s Gospel was without verses 1—10. 

Verse 28: for “ Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all 
the prophets,” Marcion read, “all the righteous,”® and 
added “ held back” after “ cast.’® 

Verses 29—35 of St. Luke’s chapter were not in Mar- 
cion’s Gospel. 


1 In some of the most ancient codices of St. Luke, “ which art in heaven” 
is not found. Πάτερ, ἐλθέτω πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμά σου. 

2 κλῆσιν instead of κρίσιν. 3 ὑμῶν omitted. 

4 τῇ ἑσπερινῇ φυλακῇ, for ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ φυλακῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ φυλακῇ. 

> πάντας Tove δικαίους. 


8 ἐκβαλλομένους καὶ κρατουμένους ἔξω, 


OU 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 253 





Chap. x1. 

Same as St. Luke xiv. 

Verses 7—11 omitted. 

Chap. xi. 

Same as St. Luke xv. 1—10. 

Verses 11—32 omitted. 

Chap. xiii. 

Same as St. Luke xvi. 

But verse 12: “If ye have not been faithful in that 
which is another man’s, who will give you that which 
is mine ?”? 

And verse 17: for “One tittle of the Law shall not 
fall,” Marcion read, “One tittle of my words shall not 
talk? 

Chap. xiv. 

Same as St. Luke xvii. 

But verse 2: εἰ μη ἐγεννήθη, ἢ μύλος ovixds,® “if he had 
not been born, or if a mill-stone,” &ce. 

Verses 9, 10: Marcion’s Gospel had, “ Doth he thank 
that servant because he did the things that were com- 
manded him? I trow not. So likewise do ye, when ye 
shall have done all those things that are commanded 
you.” Omitting, “Say, We are unprofitable servants ; 
we have done that which was our duty to do.” 

Verse 14: “And he sent them away, saying, Go show 
yourselves unto the priests,” &c., in place of, “ And when 
he saw them, he said unto them,” &c.* 

Verse 18 ran: “ These are not found returning to give 
glory to God. And there were many lepers in the time 


1 ἐμόν for ὑμέτερον. 

2 ἢ τῶν λόγων pou μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν. 

2 Some codices of St. Luke have, λίθος μυλικὸς ; others, μύλος ὀνικός. 
4 ᾿Απέστειλεν αὐτοὺς λέγων. 


9254 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 





of Eliseus the prophet in Israel; and none of them was 
cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.”? 
Chap. xv. 
Same as St. Luke xviii. 1—30, 35—43. 
Verse 19: “Jesus said to him, Do not call me good; 
one is good, the Father.”? 
Verses 31—34 were absent from Marcion’s Gospel. 
Chap. xvi. 
Same as St. Luke xix. 1—28. 
Verses 29—48 absent. 
Verse 9: “For that he also is a son of Abraham,” was 
not in Marcion’s text. 
Chap. xvii. 
Same as St. Luke xx. 1—8, 19—36, 3947. 
Verses 9—18 not in Marcion’s Gospel. 
Verse 19: “They perceived that he had spoken this 
parable against them,” not in Marcion’s text. 
Verse 35: “ But they which shall be accounted worthy 
of God to obtain that world,” &c.? 
Verses 37, 38, omitted. 
Chap. xviii. 
Same as St. Luke xxi. 1—17, 19, 20, 23—38. 
Verses 18, 21, 22, were not in Marcion’s Gospel. 
Chap. xix. 
Same as St. Luke xxii. 1—15, 19—27, 31—34, 39— 
48, 52—71. 
Verses absent were therefore 16-—18, 28—30, 35—38, 
45—51. 
Chap. xx. 
Same as St. Luke xxii. 
1 μὴ ὁ ἀλλογενὴς οὗτος omitted ; the previous question, Οὐχ εὑρέθησαν 
k.T.A., made positive; and Luke iv. 27 inserted. 
2 Μή μελέγε ἀγαθόν᾽ εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ πατήρ. 


3 ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ inserted. 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 255 


Verse 2: “And they began to accuse him, saying, We 
found this one perverting the nation, and destroying the 
Law and the Prophets, and forbidding to give tribute to 
Cesar, and leading away the women and children,” 

Verse 43: “ Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou 
be with me.” 

Chap. xxi. 

Same as St. Luke xxiv. 1—26, 28—51. 

Verse 25: “0 fools and sluggish-hearted in believing 
all those things which he said to you,” in place of, “in 
believing all those things which the prophets spake.” 

Verse 27 was omitted. 

Verse 32: “And while he opened to us the Scrip- 
tures,” omitted. 

Verse 44: “These are the words which I spake unto 
you, while I was yet with you.” What follows in St. 
Luke, “that all things must be fulfilled, which were 
written in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the 
Psalms, concerning me,” was omitted. 

Verse 45 was omitted. 

Verse 46 ran: “That thus it behoved Christ to suffer,” 
Ὅ0.; so that the whole sentence read, “These are the 
words which I spake unto you, while I-was yet with 
you, That thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise 
from the dead the third day.” 

Verses 52 and 53 were omitted. 


1 καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον Kai τοὺς προφήτας after διιστρέφοντα τὸ 
ἔθνος, and καὶ ἀναστρέφοντα τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὰ τέκνα after φόρους μὴ 
δοῦναι. 

2 ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ omitted. Possibly the whole verse was omitted. 

3 οἷς ἐλάλησεν ὑμῖν, instead of ἐλάλησαν οἱ προφῆται. Volckmar thinks 
that in v. 19, ‘‘of Nazareth” was omitted, but neither St. Epiphanius nor 
Tertullian say so. 


256 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


I shall now make a few remarks on some of the 
passages absent from Marcion’s Gospel, or which, in it, 
differ from the Canonical Gospel of St. Luke. 

1. It was not attributed to St. Luke. It was To 
Εὐαγγέλιον, not κατὰ Λουκᾶν. Tertullian explicitly says, 
“ Marcion inscribes no name on his Gospel,” and in the 
“Dialogue on the Right Faith” it is asserted that he 
protested: his Gospel was the Gospel, the only one; and 
that the multiplicity of Gospels used by Catholics, and 
their discrepancies, were a proof that none of these other 
Gospels were genuine. He even went so far as to assert 
that his Gospel was written by Christ,” and when closely 
pressed on this point, and asked whether Christ wrote 
the account of his own passion and resurrection, he said 
it was so, but afterwards hesitated, and asserted that it 
was probably added by St. Paul. 

This shows plainly enough that Marcion had received 
the Gospel, probably from the Church of Sinope, where 
it was the only one known, and that he had heard 
nothing about St. Luke as its author; indeed, knew 
nothing of its origin. He treated it with the utmost 
veneration, and in his veneration for it attributed its 
authorship to the Lord himself; supposing the words of 
St. Paul, “the Gospel of Christ,’® “the Gospel of his 
Son,”4 “the Gospel of God,’® to mean that Jesus Christ 
was the actual author of the book. 

Marcion, it may be remarked, would have had no 
objection to acknowledging St. Luke as the compiler of 


1 Tert. adv. Marcion, iv. 2. “Marcion evangelio scilicet suo nullum 
adscribit nomen.” 


2 Ἕν ἐστι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ὃ ὁ Χριστὸς ἔγραψεν. 
5 Romi. 16, xv.019, 295.1 Cor.ix. 12, 18302 ΟΣ, iv, 4, ames 
al 1. 7: 


4 Rom. i. 9. 


> Rom,'i. 1, xv. 16; 1 These 2,9: 1 Tim. i, 11. 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 257 





the Gospel, as that evangelist was a devoted follower of 
St. Paul. If he did not do so, it was because at Sinope 
the Gospel read in the Church was not known by his 
name. 

2. Marcion’s Gospel was without the Preface, Luke 1. 
1—4. 

This Preface is certainly by St. Luke, but was added, 
we may conjecture, after the final revision of his Gos- 
pel, when he issued the second edition. Its absence 
from Marcion’s Gospel shows that it did not accompany 
the first edition. 

3. The narrative of the nativity, Luke 1. iL, is not in 
Marcion’s Gospel. 

It has been supposed by critics that he omitted this 
narrative purposely, because his Christ was descended 
from the highest God, had no part with the world of the 
Demiurge, and had therefore no earthly mother! But 
if so, why did Marcion suffer the words, “Thy mother 
and thy brethren stand without desiring to see thee” 
. (Luke viii. 20), to remain in his Gospel ? 

And it does not appear that Marcion denied the 
incarnation 7 foto, and went to the full extreme of 
Docetic doctrine. On the contrary, he taught that 
Christ deceived the God of this World, by coming into 
it as a man. The Demiurge trusted he would be his 
Messiah, to confirm the Law for ever. But when he 
saw that Christ was destroying the Law, he inflicted on 
him death. And this was only possible, because Christ 
was, through his human nature, subject to his power. 

It is a less violent supposition that in the Church of 
Sinope the Gospel was, like that of St. Mark, without a 
narrative of the nativity and childhood of Jesus. It is 
probable, moreover, that the first two chapters of St. 
Luke’s Gospel were added at a later period. The 

1 Volckmar : Das Evangelium Marcions ; Leipzig, 1852, p. 54. 


258 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 





account of the nativity and childhood is taken from the 
mouths of the blessed Virgin Mary, of eye-witnesses, or 
contemporaries. “Mary kept all these things and pon- 
dered them in her heart,” and “His mother kept all 
these sayings in her heart.”! This is our guaranty that 
the story is true. Mary kept them in memory, and the 
evangelist appeals to her memory for them. So with 
regard to the account of the nativity of the Baptist, 
“ All they that heard these things laid them up in their 
hearts.” To their recollections also the evangelist 
appeals as his authority. 

Now it is not probable that St. Luke or St. Paul were 
brought in contact with the Virgin and the people about 
Hebron, relatives of the Baptist. Their lives were spent 
in Asia Minor. But St. John, we know, became the 
guardian of the blessed Virgin after the death of Christ. 
Greek ecclesiastical tradition declares that she accom- 
panied him to Ephesus. But be that as it may, St. John 
almost certainly would have tenderly and reverently 
collected the “memorabilia” of the blessed Mother con- 
cerning her Divine Son’s birth and infancy. 

St. John had the organizing and disciplining of the 
“ Asiatic” churches founded by St. Paul after the re- 
moval of the Apostle of the Gentiles. When he came 
to Ephesus, and went through the Churches of Asia 
Minor, he found a Gospel compiled by St Luke in 
general use. To this he added such particulars as were 
expedient to complete it, amongst others the “ recollec- 
tions” of St. Mary, and the relatives of the Baptist. It 
is most probable that he gave them to St. Luke to work 
into his narrative, and thus to form a second edition 
of his Gospel4 That the Gospel of St. Luke was re- 


1 Luke ii. 19, 51. 2 Luke i. 66. 3 John xix. 26. 
4 This was some time prior to the composition of St. John’s Gospel. 
The first two chapters of St, Luke’s Gospel were written apparently by the 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 259 





touched after the abatement of the anti-legal excitement 
can hardly be doubted. We shall see instances as we 
proceed. 

4. The section relating to the Baptist (Luke i. 2— 
19), with which the most ancient Judaizing Gospels 
opened, was absent from that of Marcion. 

John belonged to the Old Covenant; he could not 
therefore be regarded as revealing the Gospel of the 
unknown God. This is thought by Baur, Hilgenfeld 
and Volckmar, to be the reason of the omission. But 
the explanation is strained. I think it probable, as 
stated above, that St. Luke when with St. Paul had not 
got the narrative of those who had heard and seen the 
birth of the Baptist and his preaching beyond Jordan. 
Had Marcion, moreover, objected to the Baptist as be- 
longing to the Old Covenant, he would not have suffered 
the presence in his Gospel of the passage, Luke vii. 24— 
28, containing the high commendation of John, “This is 
he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger 
before thy face, which shall prepare the way before 
thee.” 

5. There is no mention in Marcion’s Gospel of the 
baptism of our Lord (Luke ii. 21, 22). This is given 
very briefly in St. Luke’s Gospel. To the Nazarene 
Church this event was of the utmost importance; it was 
regarded as the beginning of the mission of Jesus, the 
ratification by God of his Messiahship, and therefore the 
Gospels of Mark and of the Hebrews opened with it. 
But the significance was not so deeply felt by the 


same hand which wrote the rest. Similarities, identity of expression, 
almost prove this. Compare i. 10 and ii. 13 with viii. 37, ix. 37, xxiii. 1; 
also i. 10 with xiv. 17, xxii. 14; i. 20 with xxii. 27, andi. 20 with xii. 3, 
xix. 44; 1. 22 with xxiv. 23; i. 44 with vii. 1, ix. 44; also 1. 45 with 
x. 23, xi. 27, 28; also i. 48 with ix. 38; i. 66 with ix. 44; 1. 80 with 
ix. 51; ii. 6 with iv. 2; ii. 9 with xxiv. 4; 11. 10 with v. 10; 11, 14 with 
xix. 18; ii. 20 with xix. 87; ii. 25 with xxiii. 50; ii, 26 with ix. 20. 


200 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


Gentile converts, and therefore the circumstance is 
despatched in a few words. 

6. The genealogy of Joseph is not given (Luke i. 
23—38). This is not to be wondered at. It is an 
evidently late interpolation, clumsily foisted into the 
sacred text, rudely interrupting the narrative. 

(21): “Now when all the people were baptized, it 
came to pass that Jesus also being baptized, and pray- 
ing, the heaven opened, (22) and the Holy Ghost de- 
scended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a 
voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved 
Son; in thee I am well pleased. (iv. 1): And Jesus 
being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and 
was led by the Spirit into the wilderness.” Such is the 
natural order. But it is interrupted by the generation 
of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, from Adam. 
This generation does not concern Jesus at all, but it 
came through some Jewish Christians into the hands of 
the Church in Asia Minor, and was forced between the 
joints of the sacred text, to the interruption of the nar- 
rative and the succession of ideas. Marcion had it not 
in the Gospel brought from Pontus. 

7. The narrative of the Temptation is not in Marcion’s 
Gospel. It can have been no omission of his, for it 
would have tallied admirably with his doctrine. He 
held that the God of this world believed Christ at first 
to be the Messiah, but finally was undeceived. In the 
narrative of the Temptation the devil offers Christ all 
the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them. He 
takes the position which in Marcion’s scheme was occu- 
pied by the Demiurge. Had he possessed the record of 


1 The descent of the Holy Ghost in bodily shape explains why in iv. 1 
he is said to have been full of the Holy Ghost. I suspect the narrative of 
the unction occurred here. This was removed to cut off occasion to Docetic 
error, and the gap was clumsily filled with an useless genealogy. 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 261 








the Temptation, it would have mightily strengthened 
his position. 

8. The “Gospel of our Lord” opens with the words, 
“Tn the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cesar, Pontius Pilate 
ruling in Judea (ἡγεμονεύοντος in place of ἐπιτροπεύοντος, 
an unimportant difference), Jesus came down to Caper- 
naum, a city of Galilee, and straightway on the Sabbath 
days, going into the synagogue, he taught” (εἰξελθὼν εἰς 
τὴν συναγωγὴν ἐδίδασκε in place of καὶ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν 
τοῖς σάββασιν), again an unimportant variation. 

9. The words “Jesus of Nazareth”? are in Marcion’s 
Gospel simply “Jesus.” This may have been done 
by Marcion on purpose. But there is no evidence that 
it was omitted in xxiv. 19. 

10. The order of events, as given in Luke iv., is 
changed. Jesus, in Marcion’s Gospel, goes first to Ca- 
pernaum, and then to Nazareth, reversing the order in 


St. Luke. 


. Christ goes 


Tur GosPEL OF THE LORD. 


to Capernaum, 
and enters the synagogue to 
teach. 


. All are astonished at his doc- 


trine and power. 


. He heals the demoniac. 
. All are amazed at his power. 
. He enters Simon’s house, and 


heals his wife’s mother. 


. His fame spreads. 
. He teaches in the synagogues, 


being glorified of all. 


. He comes to Nazareth, and goes 


into the synagogue. 


. All bare him witness, and 


wonder at his gracious words. 


THE GosPEL or ὅτ. LUKE, 
iv. 14—40. 


. Christ comes into Galilee, and 


the fame of him goes round 
about (14). 


. He teaches in the synagogues 


of Galilee, being glorified of 
all (15). 


. He comes to Nazareth, and 


goes into the synagogue (16). 


. He opens Esaias, and interprets 


his prophecy (17—21). 


. All bare him witness, and 


wonder at his gracious words, 
but ask if he is not Joseph’s 
son (22). 


6. Christ quotes a proverb, and 


combats it (23—27). 


1 Ναζωραῖος for NaZapnvoc omitted. 


ΦΌν LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 





6. Christ quotes a proverb, and 7. The Nazarenes seek to throw 


combats it. him down a precipice (28, 
7. The Nazarenes seek to throw 29). 
him down a precipice. 8. He escapes, and goes to Caper- 
8. He escapes, and goes to Caper- naum (30, 31). 
naum. 9. He teaches in the synagogue at 
15. At sunset he heals the sick. Capernaum (31). 


10. All are astonished at his doc- 
trine and power (32). 

11. He heals the demoniac (33— 
35). 

12. All are amazed at his power 
(36). 

13. His fame spreads (37). 

14. He enters Simon’s house, and 
heals his wife’s mother (38, 
39). 

15. At sunset he heals the sick (40). 


By placing the subject-matter of the two narratives 
side by side, and numbering that of St. Luke consecu- 
tively, and giving the corresponding paragraphs, with 
their numbers as in Luke’s order, arranged in the Mar- 
cionite succession, the reader is able at once to see the 
difference. No doctrinal question was touched by this 
transposition. The only explanation of it which is satis- 
factory is that each Gospel contained fragments which 
were pieced together differently. One block consisted 
of paragraphs 2—8; another, of paragraphs 9—14; 
another 15. Besides these blocks, there were chips, 
splinters, the paragraphs 1, 13, 15. Marcion’s Gospel 
was without 1 and 4. 

Par. 2, verse 15: “He taught in their synagogues, 
being glorified of all,” was common to both Gospels. In 
Marcion’s, most appropriately, it came after Christ has 
performed miracles; less judiciously in Luke’s does it 
come before the performance of miracles. 

Par. 13: “And the fame of him went out into every 
place of the country round about.” St. Luke put this 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 263 
after Christ had taught in Nazareth and Capernaum; in 
Marcion’s Gospel it was before he had been to Nazareth, 
but immediately after the healing of Simon’s wife’s 
mother. It ought probably to occupy the place assigned 
it in Marcion’s text. The fame of Christ spreads. They 
in Nazareth hear of it, and say, “ What we have heard 
done in Capernaum, do also here.” 

Par. 15: “Now when the sun was setting, all they 
that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto 
him,” &., as in St. Luke iv. 40, 41. This Marcion’s 
Gospel has immediately after the healing of the sick wife 
of Simon, as though the rumour of the miracle attracted 
all who had sick relations to bring them to Christ. No 
doubt the paragraph should rightly stand in connection 
with this miracle of healing the fevered woman. 

But there are omissions supposed to have been made 
purposely by Marcion. In verse 16 of St. Luke’s Gospel, 
c.iv.: “He came to Nazareth, where he had been brought 
up,’ in the “Gospel of the Lord” ran, “ He came to Naza- 
‘reth” only. But it is not improbable that “where he had 
been brought up” was a gloss which crept into the text 
after the addition of the narrative of the early years of 
Christ had been added to the Canonical Gospel. 

All the reading from the prophet Esaias, and the expo- 
sition of the prophecy (Luke iv. 17—21) was omitted, 
there can be small question, by Marcion, because it 
mutilated against. his views touching the prophets as 
ministers, not of the God of Christ, but of the God of 
this world. 

Luke iv. 23: “Do also here in thy country,” changed 
into, “Do also here.” It is possible that “in thy 
country” may be a gloss which has crept into a later 
text of St. Luke’s Gospel, or was inserted by Luke in 
his second edition. 

11. Luke vi. 29—35 are wanting in Marcion’s Gospel. 





264 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. * 


That verses 29—-32 should have been purposely ex- 
cluded, it is impossible to suppose, as they favoured 
Marcion’s tenets. It has been argued that the rest of 
the verses, 3335, were cut out by Marcion because in 
verse 34 it is said, “The Son of Man is come eating and 
drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man and a 
winebibber.” But the “Gospel of the Lord” contained 
Luke v. 33: “ Why do the disciples of John fast often, 
and make long prayers, and likewise the disciples of the 
Pharisees ; but thine eat and drink;” and the example 
of Christ going to the feast prepared by Levi is retained 
(v. 29). | 

12. Luke vii. 19: “Then came to him his mother 
and his brethren,’ &c., omitted; but the next verse, 
“ And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother 
and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.” 
This cannot be admitted as a mutilation by Marcion. 
Had he cut, out verse 19, he would also have removed 
verse 20. Rather is verse 19 an amplification of the 
original text. The “saying” of Jesus was known in 
the “ Asiatic” churches; and when Luke wove it into 
the text of his Gospel, he introduced it with the words, 
“Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and 
could not come at him for the press,” words not neces- 
sary, but deducible from the preserved text, and useful 
as introducing it. 

13. Luke x. 21: “In that hour he rejoiced in the 
spirit, and said, I praise and thank thee, Lord of heaven, 
that those things which are hidden from the wise and- 
prudent thou hast revealed to babes.” The version in 
Luke’s Gospel may have been tampered with by Mar- 
cion, lest God should appear harsh in hiding “ those 
things from the wise and prudent.” But it is more 
likely that Marcion’s text is the correct one. Why 
should Christ thank God that he has hidden the truth 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 265 


from the wise and prudent? The reading in Marcion’s 
Gospel is not only a better one, but it also appears to 
be an independent one. He has, “I praise and. thank 
thee.” The received text differs in different codices; in 
some, Jesus rejoices “in the Spirit ;” in others, “in the 
Holy Spirit.” 

14. Luke x. 22: “ All things are delivered to me of 
my Father, and no man hath known the Father save 
the Son, nor the Son save the Father, and he to whom 
the Son hath revealed him.” No doctrinal purpose was 
effected by the change. It is therefore probable that 
the Sinope Gospel ran as in Marcion’s text. 

15. Luke x. 25: “Doing what shall I obtain life?” 
“ eternal” being omitted, it is thought, lest Jesus should 
seem to teach that eternal life was to be obtained by 
fulfilling the Law! But Marcion did not alter the same 
question when asked by the ruler, in Luke xvii. 18; for 
then Christ, after he has referred him to the Law, goes 
on to impose on him a higher law—that of love. But 
-“eternal” may be an addition to Luke’s text in the 
second edition. 

16. The first petition in the Lord’s Prayer differs in 
Marcion’s Gospel from that in St. Luke. Marcion has, 
“Father! may thy Holy Spirit come to us, Thy kingdom 
come,” &c., instead of, “ Father! (which art in heaven— 
not in the most ancient copies of St. Luke) Hallowed 
be thy name,” &c. No purpose was served by this dif- 
ference, and we must not attribute to Marcion in this 
instance wilful alteration of the sacred text. It is ap- 
parent that several versions of the Lord’s Prayer existed 
in the first age of the Church, and that this was the 
form in which it was accepted and used in Pontus, per- 
haps throughout Asia Minor. 





1 Tertul. adv. Marcion, iv. c. 25, ‘ut doctor de ea vita videatur con- 
suluisse, que in lege promittitur longeva.”’ 


N 


200 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 





That the Lord’s Prayer in St. Luke’s Gospel stood 
originally as in Marcion’s Gospel is made almost certain 
by verse 13. After giving the form of prayer, xi. 2—4, 
Christ instructs his disciples on the readiness of God 
to answer prayer. “And,” he continues, “if ye then, 
being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your 
children; how much more shall your heavenly Father 
give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” How 
ready will He be to give that which you have learned 
to ask in the first petition of the prayer I have just 
taught you! The petition was altered in the received 
text later, to accommodate it to the form given in St. 
Matthew’s Gospel. 

17. Luke xi. 29: “There shall no sign be given.” 
What follows in St. Luke’s Gospel, “but the sign of 
the prophet Jonas,” and verses 30—32, were not found 
in Marcion’s Gospel. Perhaps all this was inserted in 
the second edition of St. Luke’s Gospel. But also per- 
haps the allusions to the Ninevites and the Queen of the | 
South were omitted, because of the condemnation pro- 
nounced on the generation which received not Christ 
through them; and Jesus was not the manifestation of 
the God of judgment, but of the God of mercy. 

18. So also “judgment” was turned into “calling,” in 
verse 42; and also the verses 49—51, in which the blood 
of the prophets is said to be “required of this gene- 
ration.” 

19. Luke xii. 38: “The evening watch” is perhaps 
an earlier reading than the received one: “If he shall 
come in the second watch, or come in the third watch ;” 
which has the appearance of an expansion of the simpler 
text. 

The evening watch was the first watch. The Chris- 
tians in the first age thought that our Lord would come 
again immediately. But as he did not return again in 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 267 





glory in the first watch, they altered the text to “the 
second watch or the third watch.” Consequently Mar- 
cion’s text is the original unaltered one. 

20. Luke xii. 6, 7: “Are not five sparrows sold for 
two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before 
God? But even the very hairs of your head are all 
numbered. Fear not therefore; ye are of more value 
than many sparrows.” Perhaps Marcion omitted this 
because he did not hold that the Supreme God con- 
cerned Himself with the fate of men’s bodies. 

But more probably the passage did not occur in the 
original Pauline Gospel, but was grafted into it after- 
wards when St. Matthew’s Gospel came into the hands 
of the Asiatic Christians, when it was transferred from 
it (x. 29—31) verbatim to Luke’s Gospel. 

21. Marcion’s Gospel was without Luke xii. 1—10. 

The absence of the account of the Galilzans, whose 
blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices, and of 
those on whom the tower in Siloam fell, which occurs in 
‘the received text, removes a difficulty. St. Luke says, 
“There were present at that season some that told him 
of the Galileans, whose blood,” &c., as though it were a 
circumstance which had just taken place, whereas this 
act of barbarity was committed when Quirinus, not 
Pilate, was governor, twenty-four years before the ap- 
pearance of Jesus. And no tower in Siloam is men- 
tioned in any account of Jerusalem. The mention of 
the Galileans in the canonical text has the appearance 
of an anachronism, and probably did not exist in the 
Gospel which Marcion received, and was a late addition 
to the Gospel of Luke. 

The parable of the fig-tree which follows may, how- 
ever, have been removed by Marcion lest the Supreme 
God should appear as a God of judgment against those 
who produced no fruit, 46. did no works. But it is 

N 2 


208 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


more probable that this parable, which has an anti- 
Pauline moral, was not in the original edition of Luke’s 
Gospel. 

22. Luke xiii 28: “There shall be weeping and 
gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and 
Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom 
of God, and you yourselves thrust out,’ altered into, 
“when ye shall see all the righteous in the kingdom of 
God, and ye yourselves cast and held back without.” 

The change of “the righteous” into “Abraham, and 
Isaac, and Jacob,” in the deutero-Luke, clearly disturbs 
the train of thought. Ye Jews shall weep when ye see 
the δικαίοι, those made righteous through faith, by the 
righteousness which is not of the Law, Gentiles from East 
and West, in the kingdom, and ye yourselves cast out. 

Hilgenfeld thinks that the account of the Judgment 
by St. Matthew and St. Luke is couched in terms 
coloured by the respective parties to which the evan- 
gelists belonged, and that the sentences on the lost are 
sharpened to pierce the antagonistic party. Thus, in the 
Gospel of St. Luke, Christ dooms to woe those who are 
workers of unrighteousness, ἐργάται ἀδικίας," using the 
Pauline favourite expression to designate those who are 
cast out to weeping and gnashing of teeth, as men who 
have not received the righteousness which is of faith; 
whereas, in St. Matthew it is the workers of anomia, 
οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν, by which Hilgenfeld thinks 
the Pauline anti-legalists are not obscurely hinted at, 
who are hurled into outer darkness. In St. Luke it is 
curious to notice how the lost are described as Jews: 
“We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou 
hast taught in our streets;’ whereas the elect who 


1 Gray ὄψησθε πάντας τοὺς δικαίους ἐν TH βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὑμᾶς δὲ 


ἐκβαλλομένους καὶ κρατουμένους ἔξω. ----ΠρΊρἢ. Schol. 40; Tertul. ο. 30. 
2 Luke xiii. 25—30, 3 Matt. vii. 13. 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 269 


“sit down in the kingdom of God” come “from the east 
and from the west, and from the north and from the 
south,” that is to say, are Gentiles. 

In Marcion’s text we have therefore the ἀδικαίοι shut 
and cast out, and the δικαίοι sitting overthroned in the 
kingdom of God. It can scarcely be doubted that this 
is the correct reading, and that “Abraham, Isaac and 
Jacob,’ was substituted for δικαίοι at a later period with 
a conciliatory purpose. 

The rest of the chapter, 31—35, is not to be found in 
Marcion’s Gospel. The first who are to be last, and the 
last first, not obscurely means that the Gentiles shall 
precede the Jews. This was in the “Gospel of the 
Lord,” which was, however, without the warning given 
to Christ, “Get thee out, and depart hence; for Herod 
will kill thee,” and the lamentation of the Saviour over 
the holy city, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest 
the prophets,’ &. Why Marcion should omit this is 
not clear. It was probably not in the Gospel of Sinope. 

23. Luke xiv. 7—11. The same may be said of the 
parable put forth to those bidden to a feast, when Christ 
marked how they chose out the chief rooms. It has been 
supposed by critics that Marcion omitted it, lest Jesus 
should seem to sanction feasting; but this reason is far- 
fetched, and it must be remembered that he did retain 
Luke v. 29 and 33. 

24. Luke xv. 11—32. The parable of the Prodigal 
Son is omitted. That it is left out, as is suggested by 
some critics, because the elder son signifies mystically 
the Jewish Church, and the prodigal son represents the 
Heathen world, is to transfer such allegorical interpre- 
tations back to an earlier age than we are justified in 
doing. Marcion was not bound to admit such an inter- 
pretation of the parable, if received in his day. Marcion, 


270 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


moreover, opposed allegorizing the sayings of Scripture, 
and insisted on their literal interpretation. Neander 
says, “The other Gnostics united with their theosophical 
idealism a mystical, allegorizing interpretation of the 
Scriptures. Marcion, simple in heart, was decidedly 
opposed to this artificial method of interpretation. He 
was a zealous advocate of the literal interpretation 
which prevailed among the antagonists of Gnosticism.”* 
It is therefore most improbable that a popular interpre- 
tation of this parable, if such an interpretation existed 
at that time, should have induced Marcion to omit the 
parable. 

25. Luke xvi. 12: “If ye have not been faithful in 
that which is another man’s, who will give you that 
which is mine?” Surely a reading far preferable to that 
in the Canonical Gospel, “ who will give you that which 
is your own ?” 

26. Luke xvi. 17: “One tittle of my words shall not 
fall,” in place of, “ One tittle of the Law shall not fall.” 
As has been already remarked, the reading in St. Luke 
is evidently corrupt, altered deliberately by the party of 
conciliation. Marcion’s is the genuine text. 

27. Luke xvu. 9,10. The saying, “ We are unprofit- 
able servants; we have done that which was our duty to 
do,” was perhaps omitted by Marcion, lest the Gospel 
should seem to sanction the idea that any obligation 
whatever rested on the believer. The received text is 
thoroughly Pauline, inculcating the worthlessness of 
man’s righteousness. Hahn and Ritschl argue that 
the whole of the parable, 7—10, was not in Marcion’s 
Gospel; and this is probable, though St. Epiphanius 
only says that Marcion cut out, “We are unprofitable 
servants; we have done that which was our duty to 


1 Hist. of the Christian Religion, tr. Bohn, ii. p. 131. 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. Qin 


do.”* The whole parable has such a Pauline ring, that 
it would probably have been accepted in its entirety by 
Marcion, if his Gospel had contained it; and the parable 
is divested of its point and meaning if only the few 
words are omitted which St. Epiphanius mentions as 
deficient. 

28. Luke xvu. 18: “There are not found returning to 
give glory to God. And there were many lepers in the 
time of Eliseus the prophet in Israel; and none of them 
was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.” In the 
Gospel of the Lord, this passage concerning the lepers in 
the time of Eliseus occurs twice ; once in chap. 1. v. 15, 
as already given, and again here. It has been preserved 
in St. Luke’s Gospel in only one place, in that corre- 
sponding with Marcion i. 15, viz. Luke iv. 27. 

It is clear that this was a fragmentary saying of our 
Lord drifting about, which the compiler of the Sinope 
Gospel inserted in two places where it thought it would 
fit in with other passages. When St. Luke’s Gospel was 
revised, it was found that this passage occurred twice, 
and that it was without appropriateness in chap. xvii. 
after verse 18, and was therefore cut out. But in Mar- 
cion’s Gospel it remained, a monument of the manner in 
which the Gospels were originally constructed. 

29. Luke xvii. 19. Marcion had: “Jesus said to 
him, Do not call me good; one is good, the Father ;” 
another version of the text, not a deliberate alteration. 

30. Luke xvii. 31—34. The prophecies of the pas- 
sion omitted by Marcion. 

31. Luke xix. 29—46. The ride into Jerusalem on 
an ass, and the expulsion of the buyers and sellers from 
the Temple, are omitted. 

Why the Palm-Sunday triumphal entry should have 

1 παρέκοψε τό" λέγετε, ἀχρεῖοι δοῦλοί ἐσμεν" ὃ ὠφείλομεν ποιῆσαι 
πεποιήκαμεν, Sch. 47. 


22 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


been excluded does not appear. In St. Luke’s Gospel 
Jesus is not hailed as “ King of the Jews” and “Son of 
David.” Had this been the case, these two titles, we 
may conclude, would have been eliminated from the 
narrative ; but we see no reason why the whole account 
should be swept away. It probably did not exist in the 
original Gospel Marcion obtained in Pontus. 

Did Marcion cut out the narrative of the expulsion of 
the buyers and sellers from the Temple? I think not. 
St. John, in his Gospel, gives that event in his second 
chapter as occurring, not at the close of the ministry of 
Christ, but at 105 opening. 

St. John is the only evangelist who can be safely re- 
lied upon for giving the chronological order of events. 
St. Matthew, as has been already shown, did not write 
the acts of our Lord, but his sayings only; and St. Mark 
was no eye-witness. 

A Pauline Gospel would not contain the account of 
the purifying of the Temple, and the saying, “My 
house is the house of prayer.” But when St. Matthew’s 
Gospel, or St. Mark’s, found its way into Asia Minor, 
this passage was extracted from one of them, and inter- 
polated in the Lucan text, in the same place where it 
occurred in those Gospels—at the end of the ministry, 
and therefore in the wrong place. 

32. Luke xx. 9—18. The parable of the vineyard 
and the husbandmen. This Marcion probably omitted 
because it made the Lord of the vineyard, who sent 
forth the prophets, the same as the Lord who sent his 
son. The lord of the vineyard to Marcion was the 
Demiurge, but the Supreme Lord sent Christ. 

33. Luke xx. 37, 38, omitted by Marcion, because a 
reference to Moses, and God, as the God of Abraham, 
Isaac and Jacob. | 

94, Luke xxi. 18: “There shall not an hair of your 








GOSPEL OF THE LORD. QT 


head perish,” omitted, perhaps, lest the God of heaven, 
whom Christ revealed, should appear to concern himself 
about the vile bodies of men, under the dominion of the 
God of this world; but more probably this verse did 
not exist in the original text. The awkwardness of its 
position has led many critics to reject it as an interpola- 
tion,' and the fact of Marcion’s Gospel being without it 
goes far to prove that the original Luke Gospel was 
without it. 

35. Luke xxi. 21, 22. The warning given by our 
Lord to his disciples to flee from Jerusalem when they 
see it encompassed with armies. Verse 21 was omitted 
no doubt because of the words, “These be the days of 
vengeance, that all things which are written may be 
fulfilled.” This jarred with Marcion’s conception of the 
Supreme God as one of mercy, and of Jesus as pro- 
claiming blessings and forgiveness, in place of the 
vengeance and justice of the World-God. 

36. Luke xxii. 16—18. The distribution of the pas- 
‘chal cup among the disciples is omitted. 

37. Luke xxii. 28—30. The promise that the apostles 
should eat and drink in Christ’s kingdom and judge the 
twelve tribes, was omitted by Marcion, as inconsistent 
with his views of the spiritual nature of the heavenly 
kingdom ; and that judgment should be committed by 
the God of free forgiveness to the apostles, was in his 
sight impossible. Why Luke xxiii. 43, 47—49, were not 
in Marcion’s Gospel does not appear; they can hardly 
have been omitted purposely. 

38. Luke xxii. 2. In Marcion’s Gospel it ran: “ And 
they began to accuse him, saying, We found this one 
perverting the nation, and destroying the Law and the 
Prophets, and forbidding to give tribute to Cesar, and 
leading away the women and children.” 


1 Baur calls it an ‘‘ ungeschickte Zusatz.” 


N3 


274 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


It is not possible that Marcion should have forced 
the words “destroying the Law and the Prophets” into 
the text, for these are the accusations of false witnesses. 
And this is precisely what Marcion taught that Christ 
had come to do. Both this accusation and that other, 
that he drew away after him the women and children 
from their homes and domestic duties and responsi- 
bilities, most probably did exist in the original text. It 
is not improbable that they were both made to dis- 
appear from the authorized text later, when the con- 
ciliatory movement began. 

39. Luke xxiv. 43. In Marcion’s Gospel, either the 
whole of the verse, “ Verily, I say unto thee, To-day 
shalt thou be with me in Paradise,” was omitted, or 
more probably only the words “in Paradise.” Marcion 
would not have purposely cut out such an instance of 
free acceptance of one who had all his life transgressed 
the Law, but he may have cancelled the words “in 
Paradise.” 

40. Luke xxiv. 25 stood in Marcion’s Gospel, “Ὁ 
fools, and in heart slow to believe all that he spake unto 
you ;” and 27 and 45, which relate that Jesus explained 
to the two disciples out of Moses and the Prophets how 
he must suffer, and that he opened their understanding 
to understand the Scriptures, were both absent. 

41. Luke xxiv. 46. Instead of Christ appealing to 
the Prophets, Marcion made him say, “These are the 
words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with 
you, that thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise 
from the dead the third day.” This was possibly Mar- 
cion’s doing. 

The other differences between Marcion’s Gospel and 
the Canonical Gospel of St. Luke are so small, that 
the reader need not be troubled with them here. For 
a fuller and more particular account of Marcion’s Gos- 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. 275 


pel he is referred to the works indicated in the foot- 
note. 

It will be seen from the list of differences between 
the “Gospel of our Lord” and the Gospel of St. Luke, 
that all the apparent omissions cannot be attributed to 
Marcion. The Gospel he had he regarded with supreme 
awe; it was because his Gospel was so ancient, so hal- 
lowed by use through many years, that it was invested 
by him with sovereign authority, and that he regarded 
the other Gospels as apocryphal, or at best only deutero- 
canonical. 

It is by no means certain that even where his Gospel 
has .been apparently tampered with to suit his views, 
his hands made the alterations in it. What amplifi- 
cations St. Luke’s Gospel passed through when it under- 
went revision for a second edition, we cannot tell. 

The Gospel of our Lord, if not the original Luke 
Gospel—and this is probable—was the basis of Luke’s 
compilation. But that it was Luke’s first edition of his 
Gospel, drawn up when St. Paul was actively engaged 
in founding Asiatic Churches, is the view I am disposed 
to take of it. As soon as a Church was founded, the 
need of a Gospel was felt. To satisfy this want, Paul 
employed Luke to collect memorials of the Lord’s life, 
and weave them together into an historical narrative. 

The Gospel of our Lord contains nothing which is 
not found in that of St. Luke. The arrangement is so 
similar, that we are forced to the conclusion that it was 


1 The Gospel is printed in Thilo’s Codex Apocryph. Novi Testamenti, 
Lips. 1832, T.I. pp. 401—486. For critical examinations of it see 
Ritschl: Das Evangelium Marcions und das Kanonische Ev, Lucas, 
Tiibingen, 1846. Baur: Kritische Untersuchungen tiber die Kanonischen 
Evangelien, Tiibingen, 1847, p. 393 sq. Gratz: Krit. Untersuchungen 
iiber Marcions Evangelium, Tiibing. 1818. Volckmar: Das Evangelium 
Marcions, Leipz. 1852. Nicolas: Etudes sur les Evangiles Apocryphes, 
Paris, 1866, pp. 147—160. 


276 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 





either used by St. Luke, or that it was his original com- 
position. If he used it, then his right to the title of 
author of the third Canonical Gospel falls to the ground, 
as what he added was of small amount. Who then 
composed the Gospel? We know of no one to whom 
tradition even at that early age attributed it. 

St. Luke was the associate of St. Paul; ecclesiastical 
tradition attributes to him a Gospel. That of “Our 
Lord” closely resembles the Canonical Luke’s Gospel, 
and bears evidence of being earlier in composition, 
whilst that which is canonical bears evidence of later 
manipulation. All these facts point to Mareion’s Gospel 
as the original St. Luke—not, however, quite as it came 
to Marcion, but edited by the heretic. 

That the first edition of Luke bore a stronger Pauline 
impress than the second is also probable. The Canonical 
Luke has the Pauline stamp on it still, but beside it is 
the Johannite seal. More fully than any other Gospel 
does it bring out the tenderness of Christ towards sin- 
ners, a feature which has ever made it exceeding precious 
to those who have been captives and blind and bruised, 
and to whom that Gospel proclaims Christ as their deli- 
verer, enlightener and healer. 

It is not necessary here to point out the finger-mark 
of Paul in this Gospel; it has been often and well done 
by others. It is an established fact, scarcely admitting 
dispute, that to him it owes its colour, and that it 
reflects his teaching.” 

And it was this Gospel, in its primitive form, before 
it had passed under the hands of St. John, or had been 


1 Luke iv. 18. 

* Luke iv. 28 ; compare vi. 13 with Matt. x. and Luke x. 1—16, vii. 
36—50, x. 388—42, xvii. 7—10, xvii. 11—19, x. 30—387, xv. 11—32; 
Luke xiii. 25—30, compared with Matt. vii. 138 ; Luke vii. 50, viii. 48, 
xvili, 42, &c, 


GOSPEL OF THE LORD. yay 


recast by its author, that I think we may be satisfied 
Marcion possessed. That he made a few erasures is 
probable, I may almost say certain; but that he ruth- 
lessly carved it to suit his purpose cannot be established. 

Of the value of Marcion’s Gospel for determining the 
original text of the third Gospel, it is difficult to speak 
too highly. 


ἂν 
THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH. 


VALENTINE, by birth an Egyptian, probably of Jewish 
descent, it may be presumed received his education at 
Alexandria. From this city he travelled to Rome (cire. 
A.D. 140); in both places he preached the Catholic 
faith, and then retired to Cyprus.’ A miserable bigotry 
which refused to see in a heretic any motives but those 
which are evil, declared that in diseust at not obtaining 
a bishopric which he coveted, and to which a confessor 
was preferred, Valentine lapsed into heresy. We need 
no such explanation of the cause of his secession from 
orthodoxy. He was a man of an active mind and ardent 
zeal. Christian doctrine was then a system of facts; 
theology was as yet unborn. What philosophic truths 
lay at the foundation of Christian belief was unsus- 
pected. Valentine could not thus rest. He strove to 
break through the hard facts to the principles on which 
they reposed. He was a pioneer in Christian theology. 

And for his venturous essay he was well qualified. 
His studies at Alexandria had brought him in contact 
with Philonism and with Platonism. He obtained at 
Cyprus an acquaintance with the doctrines of Basilides. 
His mind caught fire, his ideas expanded. The Gnostic 
seemed to him to open gleams of light through the facts 
of the faith he had hitherto professed with dull, unintel- 
ligent submission ; and he placed himself under the in- 
spiration and instruction of Basilides. 


1 He died about A.D. 160. 


GOSPEL OF TRUTH. 279 


But he did not follow him blindly. The speculations 
of the Gnostic kindled a train of ideas which were pecu- 
harly Valentine’s own. 

The age was not one to listen patiently to his theo- 
rizing. Men were called on to bear testimony by their 
lives to facts. They could endure the rack, the scourge, 
the thumbscrew, the iron rake, for facts, not for ideas. 
That Jesus had lived and died and mounted to heaven, 
was enough for their simple minds. They cared nothing, 
they made no effort to understand, what were the causes 
of evil, what its relation to matter. 

Consequently Valentine met with cold indifference, 
then with hot abhorrence. He was excommunicated. 
Separation embittered him. His respect for orthodoxy 
was gone; its hold upon him was lost; and he allowed 
himself to drift in the wide sea of theosophic speculation 
wherever his ideas carried him. 

Valentine taught that in the Godhead exerting creative 
power were manifest two motions—a positive, the evolv- 
ing, creative, life-giving element; and the negative, 
which determined, shaped and localized the creative 
force. From the positive force came life, from the 
negative the direction life takes in its manifestation. 

The world is the revelation of the divine ideas, gradu- 
ally unfolding themselves, and Christ and redemption 
are the perfection and end of creation. Through crea- 
tion the idea goes forth from God; through Christ the 
idea perfected returns to the bosom of God. Redemp- 
tion is the recoil wave of creation, the echo of the fiat 
returning to the Creator’s ear. 

The manifestation of the ideas of God is in unity; but. 
in opposition to unity exists anarchy; in antagonism 
with creation emerges the principle of destruction. The 
representative of destruction, disunion, chaos, is Satan. 
The work of creation is infinite differentiation in perfect 


280 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


harmony. But in the midst of this emerges discord, an 
element of opposition which seeks to ruin the concord 
in the manifestation of the divine ideas. Therefore 
redemption is necessary, and Christ is the medium of 
redemption, which consists in the restoration to harmony 
and unity of that which by the fraud of Satan is thrown 
into disorder and antagonism. 

But how comes it that in creation there should be a 
disturbing element ? That element must issue in some 
manner from the Creator; it must arise from some 
defect in Him. Therefore, Valentinian concluded, the 
God who created the world and gave source to the being 
of Satan cannot have been the supreme, all-good, perfect 
God. 

But if redemption be the perfecting of man, it must 
be the work of the only perfect God, who thereby 
counteracts the evil that has sprung up through the im- 
perfection of the Demiurge. 

Therefore Jesus Christ is an emanation from the 
Supreme God, destroying the ill effects produced in the 
world by the faulty nature of the Creator, undoing the 
discord and restoring all to harmony. 

Jesus was formed by the Demiurge of a wondrously 
constituted ethereal body, visible to the outward sense. 
This Jesus entered the world through man, as a sun- 
beam enters a chamber through the window. The 
Demiurge created Jesus to redeem the people from the 
disorganizing, destructive effects of Satan, to be their 
Messiah. 

But the Supreme God had alone power perfectly to 
accomplish this work ; therefore at the baptism of Christ, 
the Saviour (Soter) descended on him, consecrating him 
to be the perfect Redeemer of mankind, conveying to 
him a mission and power which the Demiurge could not 
have. given. 


GOSPEL OF TRUTH. 281 





In all this we see the influence of Marcion’s ideas. 

We need not follow out this fundamental principle 
of his theosophy into all its fantastic formularies. Τῇ 
Valentine was the precursor of Hegel in the enunciation 
of the universal antinomy, he was like Hegel also in 
involving his system in a cloud of incomprehensible 
terminology, in producing bewilderment where he sought 
simplicity. 

Valentine accepted the Old Testament, but only in 
the same light as he regarded the great works of the 
heathen writers to be deserving of regard.t_ Both con- 
tained good, noble examples, pure teaching; but in both 
also was the element of discord, contradictory teaching, 
and bad example. Ptolemy, the Valentinian who least 
sacrificed the moral to the theosophic element, scarcely 
dealt with the Old Testament differently from St. Paul. 
He did not indeed regard the Old Testament as the 
work of the Supreme God; the Mosaic legislation 
seemed to him to be the work of an inferior being, be- 
- cause, as he said, it contained too many imperfections 
to be the revelation of the Highest God, and too many 
excellences to be attributed to an evil spirit. But, like 
the Apostle of the Gentiles, he saw in the Mosaic cere- 
monies only symbols of spiritual truth, and, like him, he 
thought that the symbol was no longer necessary when 
the idea it revealed was manifested in ail its clearness. 
Therefore, when the ideas these symbols veiled had 
reached and illumined men’s minds, the necessity for 
them—husks to the idea, letters giving meaning to the 
thought—was at an end. 

Like St. Paul, therefore, he treated the Old Testament 
as a preparation for the New one, but as nothing more. 
We ascertain Ptolemy’s views from a letter of his to 


1 Clem. Alex, Strom. vi. 


282 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


Flora, a Catholic lady whom he desired to convert to 
Valentinianism.? 

In this letter he laboured to show that the God of 
this world (the Demiurge) was not the Supreme God, 
and that the Old Testament Scriptures were the revela- 
tion of the Demiurge, and not of the highest God. To 
prove the first point, Ptolemy appealed to apostolic tra- 
dition—no doubt to Pauline teaching—which had come 
down to him, and to the words of the Saviour, by which, 
he admits, all doctrine must be settled. In this letter 
he quotes largely from St. Paul’s Epistles, and from the 
Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John. 

Like Marcion, Ptolemy insisted that the Demiurge, 
the God of this world, was also the God who revealed 
himself in the Old Testament, and that to this God be- 
longed justice, wrath and punishment; whereas to the 
Supreme Deity was attributed free forgiveness, absolute 
goodness. The Saviour abolished the Law, therefore he 
abolished all the system of punishment for sin, that the 
reign of free grace might prevail. 

According to Ptolemy, therefore, retributive justice 
exercised by the State was irreconcilable with the nature 
of the Supreme God, and the State, accordingly, was 
under the dominion of the Demiurge. 

To the revelation of the old Law belonged ordinances 
of ceremonial and of seasons. These also are done away 
by Christ, who leads from the bondage of ceremonial to 
spiritual religion. 

Another Valentinian of note was Heracleon, who 
wrote a Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, of which 
considerable fragments have been preserved by Origen ; 
and perhaps, also, a Commentary on the Gospel of St. 
Luke. Of the latter, only a single fragment, the exposi- 


1 Epiphan. Heres. xxx, 3—7. 


GOSPEL OF TRUTH. 283 





tion of Luke xii. 8, has been preserved by Clement of 
Alexandria.? 

Heracleon was a man of deep spiritual piety, and 
with a clear understanding. He held Scripture in pro- 
found reverence, and derived his Valentinian doctrines 
from it. So true is the saying: 


“‘ Hic liber est in quo querit sua dogmata quisque, 
Invenit pariter dogmata quisque sua.” 


His interpretation of the narrative of the interview of 
the Saviour with the woman of Samaria will illustrate 
his method of dealing with the sacred text. 

Heracleon saw in the woman of Samaria a type of all 
spiritual natures attracted by that which is heavenly, 
godlike ; and the history represents the dealings of the 
Supreme God through Christ with these spiritual natures 
(πνευματικοί). 

For him, therefore, the words of the woman have a 
double meaning: that which les on the surface of the 
- sacred record, with the intent and purpose which the 
woman herself gave to them; and that which lay be- 
neath the letter, and which was mystically signified. 
“The water which our Saviour gives,” says he, “is his 
spirit and power. His gifts and grace are what can 
never be taken away, never exhausted, can never fail 
to those who have received them. They who have re- 
ceived what has been richly bestowed on them from 
above, communicate again of the overflowing fulness 
which they enjoy to the life of others.” 

But the woman asks, “Give me this water, that I 
thirst not, neither come hither to draw ”—hither—that 
is, to Jacob’s well, the Mosaic Law from which hitherto 
she had drunk, and which could not quench her thirst, 
satisfy her aspirations. “She left her water-pot behind 


1 Strom. iv. 


284 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


her” when she went to announce to others that she had 
found the well of eternal life. That is, she left the 
vessel, the capacity for receiving the Law, for she had 
now a spiritual vessel which could hold the spiritual 
water the Saviour gave. 

It will be seen that Valentinianism, like Marcionism, 
was an exaggerated Paulinism, infected with Gnosticism, 
clearly antinomian. Though the Valentinians are not 
accused of licentiousness, their ethical system was plainly 
immoral, for it completely emancipated the Christian 
from every restraint, and the true Christian was he who 
lived by faith only. He had passed by union with 
Christ from the dominion of the God of this World, a 
dominion in which were punishments for wrong-doing, 
into the realm of Grace, of sublime indifference to right 
and wrong, to a region in which no acts were sinful, no 
punishments were dealt out. 

If Valentinianism did not degenerate into the frantic 
licentiousness of the earlier Pauline heretics, it was 
because the doctrine of Valentine was an intellectual, 
theosophical system, quite above the comprehension of 
vulgar minds, and therefore only embraced by exalted 
mystics and cold philosophers. 

The Valentinians were not accused of mutilating the 
Scriptures, but of evaporating their significance. “ Mar- 
cion,” says Tertullian, “knife in hand, has cut the Scrip- 
tures to pieces, to give support to his system ; Valentine 
has the appearance of sparing them, and of trying rather 
to accommodate his errors to them, than of accommo- 
dating them to his errors. Nevertheless, he has curtailed, 
interpolated more than did Marcion, by taking from the 
words their force and natural value, to give them forced 
significations.”? 

The Pauline filiation of the sect can hardly be mis- 

1 Tertul. De Preescrip. 49, 


GOSPEL OF TRUTH. 285 


taken. The relation of Valentine’s ideas to those of 
Marcion, and those of Marcion to the doctrines of St. 
Paul, are fundamental. But, moreover, they claimed a 
filiation more obvious than that of ideas—they asserted 
that they derived their doctrines from Theodas, disciple 
of the Apostle of the Gentiles! The great importance 
they attributed to the Epistles of St. Paul is another 
evidence of their belonging to the anti-judaizing family 
of heretics, if another proof be needed. 

The Valentinians possessed a number of apocryphal 
works. “Their number is infinite,” says Irenzus.? 
But this probably apphes not to the first Valentinians, 
but to the Valentinian sects, among whom apocryphal 
works did abound. Certain it is, that in all the extracts 
made from the writings of Valentine, Ptolemy and 
Heracleon, by Origen, Epiphanius, Tertullian, &., though 
they abound in quotations from St. Paul’s Epistles and 
from the Canonical Gospels, there are none from any 
other source. i 

Nevertheless, Ireneeus attributes to them possession 
of a “ Gospel of Truth” (Evangelium Veritatis). “This 
Scripture,” says he, “does not in any point agree with 
our four Canonical Gospels.”* To this also, perhaps, 
Tertullian refers, when he says that the Valentinians 
possessed “their own Gospel in addition to ours.”4 

Epiphanius, however, makes no mention of this Gos- 
pel; he knew the writings of the Valentinians well, and 
has inserted extracts in his work on heresies, 


1 Tertul. De Prescrip. 38. 2 Tren. Adv. Hares. i, 20. 
3 Ibid, iii. 11. 
4 «*Suum preter hee nostra,’”’—Tertull. de Prescrip. 49. 


ΤῊ 
THE GOSPEL OF EVE. 


THE immoral tendency of Valentinianism broke out 
in coarse, flagrant licentiousness as soon as the doc- 
trines of the sect had soaked down out of the stratum 
of educated men to the ranks of the undisciplined and 
vulgar. 

Valentinianism assumed two forms, broke into two 
sects,—the Marcosians and the Ophites. 

Mark, who lived in the latter half of the second 
century, came probably from Palestine, as we may 
gather from his frequent use of forms from the Aramean 
liturgy. But he did not bring with him any of the 
Judaizing spirit, none of the grave reverence for the 
moral law, and decency of the Nazarene, Ebionite-and 
kindred sects sprung from the ruined Church of the 
Hebrews. 

He was followed by trains of women whom he cor- 
rupted, and converted into prophetesses. His custom 
was, in an assembly to extend a chalice to a woman 
saying to her,.“ The grace of God, which excels all, and 
which the mind cannot conceive or explain, fill all your 
inner man, and increase his knowledge in you, dropping 
the grain of mustard-seed into good ground.”* A scene 
like a Methodist revival followed. ‘The woman was 
urged to speak in prophecy ; she hesitated, declared her 
inability; warm, passionate appeals followed closely one 
on another, couched in equivocal language, exciting the 


1 Epiphan. Heres. xxxiv. 1 ; Iren. Her. i. 9. 


GOSPEL OF EVE. 287 


religious and natural passions simultaneously. The end 
was a convulsive fit of incoherent utterings, and the 
curtain fell on the rapturous embraces of the prophet 
and his spiritual bride. 

Mark possessed a Gospel, and “an infinite number of 
apocryphal Scriptures,” says Ireneeus. The Gospel con- 
tained a falsified life of Christ. One of the stories from 
it he quotes. When Jesus was a boy, he was learning 
letters. ‘The master said, “Say Alpha.” Jesus repeated 
after him, “ Alpha.” Then the master said, “Say Beta.” 
But Jesus answered, “Nay, I will not say Beta till you: 
have explained to me the meaning of Alpha.”! The 
Marcosians made much of the hidden mysteries of the 
letters of the alphabet, showing that Mark had brought 
with him from Palestine something akin to the Cab- 
balism of the Jewish rabbis. 

This story is found in the apocryphal Gospel of St. 
Thomas. It runs somewhat differently in the different 
versions of that Gospel, and is repeated twice in each 
‘with slight variations. 

In the Syriac : 


“4 Zaccheeus the teacher said to Joseph, I will teach the boy 
Jesus whatever is proper for him to learn. And he made 
him go to school. And he, going in, was silent. But Zac- 
cheeus the scribe began to tell him (the letters) from Alaph, 
and was repeating to him many times the whole alphabet. 
And he says to him that he should answer and say after him; 
but he was silent. Then the scribe became angry, and struck 
him with his hand upon his head. And Jesus said, A 
smith’s anvil, being beaten, can (not) learn, and it has no 
feeling ; but I am able to say those things, recited by you, 
with knowledge and understanding (unbeaten).”” 


1 Tren. i. 26. 


2 Wright : Syriac Apocrypha, Lond. 1865, pp. 8—10. 


288 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 





In the Greek: 


ἐς Zaccheus said to Joseph . . . Give thy son to me, that | 
he may learn letters, and with his letters I will teach him 
some knowledge, and chiefly this, to salute all the elders, and 
to venerate them as grandfathers and fathers, and to love 
those of his own age. And he told him all the letters from 
Alpha to Omega. Then, looking at the teacher Zacchzeus, 
he said to him, Thou that knowest not Alpha naturally, how 
canst thou teach Beta to others? Thou hypocrite! if thou 
knowest, teach Alpha first, and then we shall believe thee 
concerning Beta.” ὦ 


Or, according to another Greek version, after Jesus 
has been delivered over by Joseph to Zaccheeus, the 
preceptor | 


“__wrote the alphabet in Hebrew, and said to him, Alpha. 
And the child said, Alpha. And the teacher said again, 
Alpha. And the child said the same. Then again a third 
time the teacher said, Alpha. Then Jesus, looking at the 
instructor, said, Thou knowest not Alpha; how wilt thou 
teach another the letter Beta? And the child, beginning at 
Alpha, said of himself the twenty-two letters. Then he said 
again, Hearken, teacher, to the arrangement of the first letter, 
and know how many accessories and lines it hath, and marks 
which are common, transverse and connected. And when 
Zaccheus heard such accounts of one letter, he was amazed, 
and could not answer him.” ” 


Another version of the same story is found in the 
Gospel of the pseudo-Matthew : : 


“ Joseph and Mary coaxing Jesus, led him to the school, 
that he might be taught his letters by the old man, Levi. 
When he entered he was silent; and the master, Levi, told 
one letter to Jesus, and beginning at the first, Aleph, said to 


1 Tischendorf : Codex Apocr. N. T.; Evang. Thom. i. 6. 6, 14. 
2 Ibid. ii. ο. 7 ; Latin Evang. Thom, iii. c. 6, 12, 


GOSPEL OF EVE. 289 


him, Answer. But Jesus was silent, and answered nothing. 
Wherefore, the preceptor Levi, being angry, took a rod of a 
storax-tree, and smote him on the head. And Jesus said to 
the teacher Levi, Why dost thou smite me? Know in truth 
that he who is smitten teacheth him that smiteth, rather than 
is taught by him. . . . And Jesus added, and said to Levi, 
Every letter from Aleph to Tau is known by its order; 
thou, therefore, say first what is Tau, and I will tell thee 
what Aleph is. And he added, They who know not Aleph, 
how can they say Tau, ye hypocrites? First say what Aleph 
is, and I shall then believe you when you say Beth. And 
Jesus began to ask the names of the separate letters, and said, 
Let the teacher of the Law say what the first letter is, or 
why it hath many triangles, scalene, acute-angled, equilinear, 
curvi-linear,” &c.1 


At the root of Mark’s teaching there seems to have 
been a sort of Pantheism. He taught that all had 
sprung from a great World-mother, partook of her soul 
and nature; but over against this female principle stood 
‘ the Deity, the male element. 

Man represents the Deity, woman the world element ; 
and it is only through the union of the divine and the 
material that the material can be quickened into spiritual 
life. In accordance with this theory, they had a cere- 
monial of what he called spiritual, but was eminently 
carnal, marriage, which is best left undescribed. 

Not widely removed from the Marcosians was the 
Valentinian sect of the Ophites. Valentinianism mingled 
with the floating superstition, the fragments of the wreck 
of Sabianism, which was to be found among the lower 
classes. 

The Ophites represented the Demiurge in the same 
way as did the Valentinians. They called the God of 
this world and of the Jews by the name of Jaldaboth. 


1 Pseud. Matt. c. 31. 
[9] 


200 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


He was a limited being, imposing restraint on all his 
creatures ; he exercised his power by imposing law. As 
long as his creatures obeyed law, they were subject to 
his dominion. But above Jaldaboth in the sublime 
region without limit reigns the Supreme God. When 
Adam broke the Law of the World-God, he emancipated 
himself from his bondage, he passed out of his realm, he 
placed himself in relation to the Supreme God. 

The world is made by Jaldaboth, but in the world is 
infused a spark of soul, emanated from the highest God. 
This divine soul strives after emancipation from the 
bonds imposed by connection with matter, created by 
the God of this world. This world-soul under the form 
of a serpent urged Eve to emancipate herself from 
thraldom, and pass with Adam, by an act of trans- 
gression, into the glorious liberty of the sons of the 
Supreme God. 

The doctrine of the Ophites with respect to Christ 
was that of Valentine. Christ came to break the last 
chains of Law by which man was bound, and to trans- 
late him into the realm of grace where sin does not 
exist. 

The Ophites possessed a Gospel, called the “ Gospel 
of Eve.” It contained, no doubt, an account of the Fall 
from their peculiar point of view. St. Epiphanius has 
preserved two passages from it. They are so extra- 
ordinary, and throw such a light on the doctrines of this 
Gospel, that I quote them. The first is: 


“71 was planted on a lofty mountain, and lo! I beheld a 
man of great stature, and another who was mutilated. And 
then I heard a voice like unto thunder. And when I drew 
near, he spake with me after this wise: I am thou, and thou 
art I. And wheresoever thou art, there am I, and I am dis- 
persed through all. And wheresoever thou willest, there 


GOSPEL OF EVE. 291 


canst thou gather me; but in gathering me, thou gatherest 
thyself.”? 


The meaning of this passage is not doubtful. It ex- 
presses the doctrine of absolute identity between Christ 
and the believer, the radiation of divine virtue through 
all souls, destroying their individuality, that all may be 
absorbed into Christ. Individualities emerge out of God, 
and through Christ are drawn back into God. 

The influence of St. Paul’s ideas is again noticeable. 
We are not told that the perfect man who speaks with 
a voice of thunder, and who is placed in contrast with 
the mutilated man, is Christ, and that the latter is the 
Demiurge, but we can scarcely doubt it. It is greatly 
to be regretted that we have so little of this curious 
book preserved.? The second passage, with its signifi- 
cation, had better repose in a foot-note, and in Greek. 
It allows us to understand the expression of St. Ephraem, 
“ They shamelessly boast of their Gospel of Eve.” 


1 Epiph. Heres. xxvi. 3. 

2 The second passage and its meaning are: Εἶδον δένδρον φέρον δώδεκα 
καρποὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, καὶ εἶπέ pou’ τοῦτό ἐστι TO ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς, ὃ αὐτοῖ 
ἀλληγορουσιν εἰς τὴν κατὰ μῆνα γινομένην γυναικείαν ῥύσιν. Μισγόμενοι 
δὲ per ἀλλήλων τεκνοποιΐαν ἀπαγορεύουσιν. οὐ γὰρ εἰς τὸ τεκνοποιῆσαι 
παρ᾽ ἀυτοῖς ἡ φθορὰ ἐσπούδασται, ἀλλ᾽ ἡδονῆς xapw.—Epiph. Heres. 
XV. ὅ. 

3 Epiphan. Heres. xxvi. 2. He says, moreover: οὐκ αἰσχυνόμενοι 
ἀυτοῖς τοῖς ῥήμασι τὰ τῆς πορνείας διηγεῖσθαι πάλιν ἐρωτικὰ τῆς κύπριδος 
ποιητούματα. 


02 


ΤΥ. 
THE GOSPEL OF PERFECTION. 


THE Gospel of Perfection was another work regarded 
as sacred by the Ophites. St. Epiphanius says: “Some 
of them (1.6. of the Gnostics) there are who vaunt the 
possession of a certain fictitious, far-fetched poem which 
they call the Gospel of Perfection, whereas it is not a 
Gospel, but the perfection of misery. For the bitterness 
of death is consummated in that production of the devil. 
Others without shame boast their Gospel of Eve.” 

St. Epiphanius calls this Gospel of Perfection a poem, 
rounpa. But M. Nicolas justly observes that the word 
ποιήμα 15 used here, not to describe the work as a poetical 
composition, but as a fiction. In a passage of Irenzus, 
of which only the Latin has been preserved, the Gospel 
of Judas is called “ confictio,’ and it is probable that the 
Greek word rendered by “confictio” was ποιήμα.3 

Baur thinks that the Gospel of Perfection was the 
same as the Gospel of Eve.* But this can hardly he. 
The words of St. Epiphanius plainly distinguish them: 
“Some vaunt the Gospel of Perfection . . .. others 
boast ... . the Gospel of Eve;” and elsewhere he 
speaks of their books in the plural.* 


1 Tren. Heres. i. 35. 
2 Nicolas: Etudes sur les Evangiles Apocryphes, p. 168. 
3 Baur: Die Christliche Gnosis, p. 193. 


4 ἐν ἀποκρύφοις avaywworovrec. —Heres, xxvi. 5. 


ΝΣ 
THE GOSPEL OF ST. PHILIP. 


THis Gospel belonged to the same category as those 
of Perfection and of Eve, and belonged, if not to the 
Ophites, to an analogous sect, perhaps that of the Pro- 
dicians. St. Philip passed, in the early ages of Chris- 
tianity, as having been, like St. Paul, an apostle of 
the Gentiles, and perhaps as having agreed with his 
views on the Law and evangelical liberty. But tradition 
had confounded together Philip the apostle and Philip 
the deacon of Czesarea, who, after having been a member 
of the Hellenist Church at Jerusalem, and having been 
driven thence after the martyrdom of Stephen, was the 
first to carry the Gospel beyond the family of Israel, 
and to convert the heathen to Christ.2 His zeal and 
‘success caused him to be called an Evangelist.2 In the 
second century it was supposed that an Evangelist 
meant one who had written a Gospel, And as no 
Gospel bearing his name existed, one was composed for 
him and attributed to him or to the apostle—they were 
not distinguished. 

St. Epiphanius has preserved one passage from it: 


“The Lord has revealed to me the words to be spoken by 
the soul when it ascends into heaven, and how it has to 
answer each of the celestial powers. The soul must say, I 
have known myself, and I have gathered myself from all 
parts. I have not borne children to Archon (the prince of 


1 Kuseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 1. 2 Acts viii. 5, 18, 27—29, xxi. 8. 
3 Acts xxi. 8. 


294 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


this world); but I have plucked up his roots, and I have 
gathered his dispersed members. I have learned who thou 
art ; for I am, saith the soul, of the number of the celestial 
ones. But if it is proved that the soul has borne a son, she 
must return downwards, till she has recovered her children, 
and has absorbed them into herself.”} 


It is not altogether easy to catch the meaning of this 
singular passage, but it apparently has this signification. 
The soul trammelled with the chains of matter, created 
by the Archon, the Creator of the world, has to eman- 
cipate itself from all material concerns. Each thought, 
interest, passion, excited by anything in the world, is a 
child borne by the soul to Archon, to which the soul 
has contributed animation, the world, form. The great 
work of life is the disengagement of the soul from all 
concern in the affairs of the world, in the requirements 
of the body. When the soul has reached the most 
exalted perfection, it is cold, passionless, indifferent ; 
then it comes before the Supreme God, passing through 
the spheres guarded by attendant eons or angels, and 
to each it protests its disengagement. But should any 
thought or care for mundane matters be found lurking 
in the recesses of the soul, it has to descend again, and 
remain in exile till it has re-absorbed all the life it gave, 
the interest it felt, in such concerns, and then again 
make its essay to reach God. ὁ 

The conception of Virtues guarding the concentric 
spheres surrounding the Most High is found among the 
Jews. When Moses went into the presence of God 
to receive the tables of stone, he met first the angel 
Kemuel, chief of the angels of destruction, who would 
have slain him, but Moses pronounced the incommuni- 
cable Name, and passed through. Then he came to the 
sphere governed by the angel Hadarniel, and by virtue 


1 Epiphan. Heres. xxvi. 13. 


GOSPEL OF ST. PHILIP. 295 


of the Name passed through. Next he came to the 
sphere over which presided the angel Sandalfon, and 
penetrated by means of the same Name. Next he 
traversed the river of flame, called Riggon, and stood 
before the throne.! 

St. Paul held the popular Rabbinic notion of the 
spheres surrounding the throne of God, for he speaks of 
having been caught up into the third heaven? In the 
apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah there are seven heavens 
that the prophet traverses. 

The Rabbinic ideas on the spheres were taken probably 
from the Chaldees, and from the same source, perhaps, 
sprang the conception of the soul making her ascension 
through the angel-guarded spheres, which we find in the 
fragment of the Gospel of St. Philip. 

Unfortunately, we have not sufficient of the early 
literature of the Chaldees and Assyrians to be able to 
say for certain that it was so. But a very curious 
. sacred poem has been preserved on the terra-cotta 
tablets of the library of Assurbani-Pal, which exhibits a 
similar belief as prevalent anciently in Assyria. 

This poem represents the descent of Istar into the 
Immutable Land, the nether world, divided into seven 
circles. The heavenly world of the Chaldees was also 
divided into seven circles, each ruled by a planet. The 
poem therefore exhibits a descent instead of an ascent. 
But there is little reason to doubt that the passage in 
each case would have been analogous. We have no 
ancient Assyrian account of an ascent; we must there- 
fore content ourselves with what we have. 

Istar descends into the lower region, and as she 
traverses each circle is despoiled of one of her coverings 


1 Jalkut Rubeni, fol. 107. See my ‘‘ Legends of Old Testament 
Characters,” II. pp. 108, 109. 
ΠΥ COL: Bile, ae 


296 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


worn in the region above, till she stands naked before 
Belith, the Queen of the Land of Death. 


i. “ At the first gate, as I made her enter, I despoiled her; 
I took the crown from off her head. 

““¢ Hold, gatekeeper! Thou hast taken the crown from off 
my head.’ 

“<« Enter into the empire of the Lady of the Earth, to this 
stage of the circles.’ 

ii. “‘ At the second gate I made her enter; I despoiled her, 
and took from off her the earrings from her ears. 

““¢ Hold, keeper of the gate! Thou hast despoiled me of © 
the earrings from ny ears.’ 

“<¢Hnter into the empire of the Lady of the Earth, to this 
stage of the circles.’ 

ui. ‘At the third gate I made her enter; I despoiled her 
of the precious jewels on her neck. 

““«Hfold, keeper of the gate! Thou hast despoiled me of 
the jewels of my neck.’ 

*¢¢ Enter into the empire of the Lady of the Earth, to this 
stage of the circles.’ 

iv. ‘“ At the fourth gate I made her enter; I despoiled her 
of the brooch of jewels upon her breast. 

“ Hold, keeper of the gate! Thou hast despoiled me of 
the brooch of jewels upon my breast.’ 

“¢¢« Enter into the empire of the Lady of the Earth, to this 
stage of the circles.’ 

v. ‘At the fifth gate I made her enter; I despoiled her of 
the belt of jewels about her waist. 

“Hold, keeper of the gate! Thou hast despoiled me of 
the belt of jewels about my waist.’ 

«Enter into the empire of the Lady of the Earth, to this 
stage of the circles.’ 

vi. “ At the sixth gate I made her enter; I despoiled her 
of her armlets and bracelets. 

“¢ Hold, keeper of the gate! Thou hast despoiled me of 
my armlets and bracelets.’ 


GOSPEL OF ST. PHILIP. 297 


“ὁ «Enter into the empire of the Lady of the Earth, to this 
stage of the circles.’ 

vu. “ At the seventh gate I made her enter; I despoiled 
her of her skirt.” 

“‘“ Hold, keeper of the gate! Thou hast despoiled me of 
my skirt.’ | 

““<nter into the empire of the Lady of the Earth, to this 
degree of circles.’”? 


We have something very similar in the judgment 
of souls in the Egyptian Ritual of the Dead. From 
Chaldza or from Egypt the Gnostics who used the 
Gospel of St. Philip drew their doctrine of the soul 
traversing several circles, and arrested by an angel at 
the gate of each. 

The soul, a divine element, is in the earth combined 
with the body, a work of the Archon. But her aspira- 
tions are for that which is above ; she strives to “ extir- 
pate his roots.” All her “scattered members,’ her 
- thoughts, wishes, impulses, are gathered into one up- 
tapering flame. Then only does she “ know (God) for 
what He is,” for she has learned the nature of God by 
introspection. 

Such, if I mistake not, is the meaning of the passage © 
quoted by St. Epiphanius. The sect which used such 
a Gospel must have been mystical and ascetic, given 
to contemplation, and avoiding the indulgence of their 
animal appetites. It was that, probably, of Prodicus, 
strung on the same Pauline thread as the heresies of 
Marcion, Nicolas, Valentine, Marcus, the Ophites, Car- 
pocratians and Cainites. 

Prodicus, on the strength of St. Paul’s saying that all 
Christians are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, 
maintained the sovereignty of every man placed under 


1 The cuneiform text in Lenormant, Textes cuneiformes inédits, No. 30. 
The translation in Lenormant: Les premiéres civilizations, I. pp. 87—89. 


θυ 


298 LOST. PAULINE GOSPELS. 


the Gospel. But a king is above law, is not bound by 
law. Therefore the Christian is under no bondage of 
Law, moral or ceremonial. He is lord of the Sabbath, 
above all ordinances. Prodicus made the whole worship 
of God to consist in the inner contemplation of the 
essence of God. 

External worship was not required of the Christian ; 
that had been imposed by the Demiurge on the Jews 
and all under his bondage, till the time of the fulness of 
the Gospel had come.! The Prodicians did not con- 
stitute an important, widely-extended sect, and were 
confounded by many of the early Fathers with other 
Pauline-Gnostic sects. 


1 Clem, Alex. Stromata, i, f. 304 ; iii. f. 488; vii. f. 722. 


ἯΙ: 
THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS. 


THE Pauline Protestantism of the first two centuries 
of the Church had not exhausted itself in Valentini- 
anism. The fanatics who held free justification and 
emancipation from the Law were ready to run to greater 
lengths than Marcion, Valentine, or even Marcus, was 
prepared to go. 

Men of ability and enthusiasm rose and preached, and 
galvanized the latent Paulinian Gnosticism into tem- 
_ porary life and popularity, and then disappeared; the 
great wave of natural common-sense against which they 
battled returned and overwhelmed their disciples, till 
another heresiarch arose, made another effort to esta- 
blish permanently a religion without morality, again to 
fail before the loudly-expressed disgust of mankind, and 
the stolid conviction inherent in human nature that 
pure morals and pure religion are and must be indis- 
solubly united. 

Carpocrates was one of these revivalists. Everything 
except faith, all good works, all exterior observances, all 
respect for human laws, were indifferent, worse than 
indifferent, to the Christian: these exhibited, where 
found, an entanglement of the soul in the web woven 
for it by the God of this world, of the Jews, of the 
Law. The body was of the earth, the soul of heaven. 
Here, again, Carpocrates followed and distorted the 
teaching of St. Paul; the body was under the Law, the 
soul was free. Whatsoever was done in the body did 


300 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


not affect the soul. “Itis no more I that do it, but sin 
that dwelleth in me.”?! 


“ All depends upon faith and love,” said Carpocrates; ‘ ex- 
ternals are altogether matters of indifference. He who ascribes 
moral worth to these makes himself their slave, subjects him- 
self to those spirits of the world from whom all religious and 
political ordinances have proceeded ; he cannot, after death, 
pass out of the sphere of the metempsychosis. But he who 
can abandon himself to every lust without being affected by 
any, who can thus bid defiance to the laws of those earthly 
spirits, will after death rise to the unity of that Original One, 
with whom he has, by uniting himself, freed himself, even in 
this present life, from all fetters.” 2 


Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates, a youth of remark- 
able ability, who died young, exhausted by the excesses 
to which his solifidianism exposed him, wrote a work 
on Justification by Faith, in which he said: 


“ All nature manifests a striving after unity and fellow- 
ship; the laws of man contradicting these laws of nature, 
and yet unable to subdue the appetites implanted in human 
nature by the Creator himself—these first introduced sin.” 


With Epiphanes, St. Epiphanius couples Isidore, and 
quotes from his writings directions how the Faithful 
are to obtain disengagement from passion, so as to attain 
union with God. Dean Milman, in his “ History of 
Christianity,” charitably hopes that the licentiousness 
attributed to these sects was deduced by the Fathers 
from their writings, and was not actually practised by 
them. But the extracts from the books of Isidore, 
Epiphanes and Carpocrates, are sufficient to show that 


1 Rom. vii. 17. 2 Tren. Heres. i. 25. 


3 Compare Rom. iii. 20, Epiphanes died at the age of seventeen. 
Epiphan. Heres, xxxii, 8, 


GOSPEL OF JUDAS. 301 


their doctrines were subversive of morality, and that, 
when taught as religious truths to men with human 
passions, they could not fail to produce immoral results. 
An extract from Isidore, preserved by Epiphanius, giving 
instructions to his followers how to conduct themselves, 
was designed to be put in practice. It is impossible 
even to quote it, so revolting is its indecency. In sub- 
stance it is this: No man can approach the Supreme 
God except when perfectly disengaged from earthly 
passion. This disengagement cannot be attained with- 
out first satisfying passion; therefore the exhaustion of 
desire consequent on the gratification of passion is the 
proper preparation for prayer. 

To the same licentious class of Antinomians belonged 
the sect of the Antitactes. They also held the distinction 
between the Supreme God and the Demiurge, the God 
_ of the Jews,? of the Law, of the World. The body, the 
work of the God of creation, is evil; it “serves the law 
of sin ;” nay, it is the very source of sin, and imprisons, 
degrades, the soul entangled in it. Thus the soul serves 
the law of God, the body the law of sin, 1.6. of the Demi- 
urge. But the Demiurge has imposed on men his law, 
the Ten Commandments. If the soul consents to that 
law, submits to be in bondage under it, the soul passes 
from the liberty of its ethereal sonship, under the 
dominion of a God at enmity with the Supreme Being. 
Therefore the true Christian must show his adherence 
to the Omnipotent by breaking the laws of the Deca- 
logue,—the more the better.® 


1 Epiphan. xxxii. 4. 2 Clem. Strom. iii. fol. 526. 


3 It is instructive to mark how the enunciation of the same principles 
led to the same results after the lapse of twelve centuries. The proclama- 
tion of free grace, emancipation from the Law, justification by faith only, 
in the sixteenth century quickened into being heresies which had lain dead 
ἢ through long ages. Bishop Barlow, the Anglican Reformer, and one of the 


B51) 4 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


Was religious fanaticism capable of descending lower? 
Apparently it wasso. The Cainites exhibit Pauline anti- 
nomianism in its last, most extravagant, most grotesque 
expression. Their doctrine was the extreme develop- 
ment of an idea in itself originally containing an element 
of truth. 

Paul had proclaimed the emancipation of the Chris- 
tian from the Law. Perhaps he did not at first suffi- 
ciently distinguish between the moral and the ceremo- 
nial law; he did not, at all events, lay down a broad, 
luminous principle, by which his disciples might dis- 
tinguish between moral obligation to the Decalogue and 
bondage to the ceremonial Law. If both laws were 
imposed by the same God, to upset one was to upset the 
other. And Paul himself broke a hole in the dyke when 
he opposed the observance of the Sabbath, and instituted 
instead the Lord’s-day. 

Through that gap rushed the waves, and swept the 
whole Decalogue away. 


compilers of our Prayer-book, thus describes the results of the enunciation 
of these doctrines in Germany and Switzerland, results of which he was 
an eye-witness: ‘‘There be some which hold opinion that all devils and 
damned souls shall be saved at the day of doom. Some of them persuade 
themselves that the serpent which deceived Eve was Christ. Some of them 
grant to every man and woman two souls. Some affirm lechery to be no 
sin, and that one may use another man’s wife without offence. Some take 
upon them to be soothsayers and prophets of wonderful things to come, and 
have prophesied the day of judgment to be at hand, some within three 
months, some within one month, some within six days. Some of them, 
both men and women, at their congregations for a mystery show themselves 
naked, affirming that they be in the state of innocence. Also, some hold 
that no man ought to be punished or suffer execution for any crime or tres- 
pass, be it ever so horrible” (A Dyalogue describing the orygynall ground 
of these Lutheran faccyons, 1531). We are in presence once more of Mar- 
cosians, Ophites, Carpocratians. Had these sects lingered on through twelve 
centuries? Possibly only ; but it is clear that the dissemination of the 
same doctrines caused the production of these obscene sects by inevitable 
logical necessity, whether an historical filiation be established or not. 


GOSPEL OF JUDAS. 303 


Some, to rescue jeoparded morality, maintained that 
the Law contained a mixture of things good and bad ; 
that the ceremonial law was bad, the moral law was 
good. Some, more happily, asserted that the whole of 
the Law was good, but that part of it was temporary, 
provisional, intended only to be temporary and provi- 
sional, a figure of that which was to be; and the rest of 
the Law was permanent, of perpetual obligation. 

The ordinances of the Mosaic sanctuary were typical. 
When the fulfilment of the types came, the shadows 
were done away. This was the teaching of the author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, called forth by the dis- 
orders which had followed indiscriminating denuncia- 
tion of the Law by the Pauline party. 

But a large body of men could not, or would not, 
admit this distinction. St. Paul had proclaimed the 
‘emancipation of the Christian from the Law. They, 
having been Gentiles, had never been under the cere- 
monial Law of Moses. How then could they be set at 
liberty from it? The only freedom they could under- 
stand was freedom from the natural law written on the 
fleshy tables of their hearts by the same finger that had 
inscribed the Decalogue on the stones in Sinai. The 
God of the Jews was, indeed, the God of the world. 
The Old Testament was the revelation of his will. 
Christ had emancipated man from the Law. The Law 
was at enmity to Christ ; therefore the Christian was at 
enmity to the Law. The Law was the voice of the God 
of the Jews; therefore the Christian was at enmity 
to the God of the Jews. Jesus was the revelation of 
the All-good God, the Old Testament the revelation of 
the evil God. 

Looking at the Old Testament from this point of view, 
the extremé wing of the Pauline host, the Cainites, 
naturally came to regard the Patriarchs as being under 


904 LOST PAULINE GOSPELS. 


the protection, the Prophets as being under the in- 
spiration, of the God of the Jews, and therefore to 
hold them in abhorrence, as enemies of Christ and the 
Supreme Deity. Those, on the other hand, who were 
spoken of in the Old Testament as resisting God, 
punished by God, were true prophets, martyrs of the 
Supreme Deity, forerunners of the Gospel. Cain became 
the type of virtue; Abel, on the contrary, of error and 
perversity. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah 
were pioneers of Gospel freedom; Corah, Dathan and 
Abiram, martyrs protesting against Mosaism. 

In this singular rehabilitation, Judas Iscariot was re- 
lieved from the anathema weighing upon him. This 
man, who had sold his Master, was no longer regarded 
asa traitor, but as one who, inspired by the Spirit of 
Wisdom, had been an instrument in the work of redemp- 
tion. The other apostles, narrowed by their prejudices, 
had opposed the idea of the death of Christ, saying, “ Be 
it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee.”? 
But Judas, having a clearer vision of the truth, and the 
necessity for the redemption of the world by the death 
of Christ, took the heroic resolution to make that precious 
sacrifice inevitable. Rising above his duties as disciple, 
in his devotion to the cause of humanity, he judged it 
necessary to prevent the hesitations of Christ, who at 
the last moment seemed to waver; to render inevitable 
the prosecution of his great work. Judas therefore went 
to the chiefs of the synagogue, and covenanted with 
them to deliver up his Master to their will, knowing 
that by his death the salvation of the world could alone 
be accomplished.? 

Judas therefore became the chief apostle to the Cain- 


1 Matt. xvi. 21, 22; Mark vii. 31. 
? Ideas reproduce themselves singularly. There is an essay by De 
Quincy advocating the same view of the character and purpose of Judas. 


GOSPEL OF JUDAS. 305 


ites. They composed a Gospel under his name, τὸ 
Εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ “Iovda.1 Irenzeus also mentions it;? it 
must therefore date from the second century. Theodoret 
mentions it likewise. But none of the ancient Fathers 
quote it. Not a single fragment of this curious work 
has been preserved. 

“Tt is certainly to be regretted,” says M. Nicolas, 
“that this monument of human folly has completely 
disappeared. It should have been carefully preserved 
as a monument, full of instruction, of the errors into 
which man is capable of falling, when he abandons him- 
self blindly to theological dogmatism.” ? 

In addition to the Gospel of Judas, the Cainites pos- 
sessed an apocryphal book relating to that apostle whom 
they venerated scarcely second to Judas, viz. St. Paul. 
It was entitled the “Ascension of Paul,” ᾿Αναβατικὸν 
Παύλου, and related to his translation into the third 
heaven, and the revelation of unutterable things he there 
received.® 

An “ Apocalypse of Paul” has been preserved, but it 
almost certainly is a different book from the Anabaticon. 
It contains nothing favouring the heretical views of 
the Cainites, and was read in some of the churches of 
Palestine. This Apocalypse in Greek has been pub- 
lished by Dr. Tischendorf in his Apocalypses Apocryphee 
(Lips. 1866), and the translation of a later Syriac version 
in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 
VIII. 1864. 


1 Epiphan. Heres. xxxviii. 1. 2 Tren. Adv, Heres. i. 31. 
3 Etudes, p. 176. 
4 Epiphan. Heres. xxxviii. 2. 5.2 Cor.-xit. 4. 


6 Reprinted in the Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, 
p. 372. 


LONDON: 
PRINTED BY ©. GREEN AND SON, 
178, STRAND. 


Cutalogue of some Works 


PUBLISHED BY 


WILLIAMS & NORGATE. 





Alt (Syed Ameer )—Life of Mohammed. A Critical Exa- 
mination of the Life and Teachings of Mohammed, from a Moham- 
medan Standpoint ; including Chapters cn Polygamy, Slavery, Moslem 
Rationalism, Moslem Mysticism, &c. By Syzep AmzER Aur, Moulvie, 
M.A., LL.B. of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, &c. Crown 8yo, 
cloth, 9s. 


Apocryphal Gospels, and other Documents relating to the 
| History of Christ. Translated from the Originals in Greek, Latin, 
Syriac, &c.; with Notes, References, and Prolegomena. By B. Harris 
Cowper. Third Edition. 8vo, cloth, 6s. 


Baur (F. C.)—FPaul, the Apostle of Fesus Christ, his Life 
and Works, his Epistles and Teaching. A Contribution to a Critical 
History of Primitive Christianity. Translated from the Second Hdi- 
tion, edited by Εἰ. Zenumr. Vol. 1, 8vo, cloth, 10s. 6d. 


Beard (Rev. Charles )—Port Royal. A Contribution to the 
History of Religion and Literature in France. Cheaper Edition. 
2 vols. crown 8vo, 128. 


Belsham (T.)—Memoirs of the Rev. Theophilus Lindsey, 
M.A. The Centenary Volume. ὅσο, cloth, 5s. 


Bible (The) for Young People.—A Critical, Historical, and 
Moral Handbook to the Old and New Testaments. By Dr. H. Oort 
and Dr. J. HooyKaas, with the assistance of Dr. Kurznzen. Trans- 
lated from the Dutch by the Rev. P. H. WioxstzEp. Vol. I. Intro- 
duction and the Generations before Moses. Crown 8vo, cloth, 4s. 


2 CATALOGUE OF SOME WORKS 


Channing (Rev. Dr.)—The Perfect Life. A Series of Un- 
published Discourses of William Ellery Channing, D.D. Edited by 
the Rev. W. H. Coannina. Crown 8vo, 6s. 


Channing and Lucy Atkin. — Correspondence of William 
Ellery Channing, D.D., and Lucy Aikin, from 1826 to 1842. Edited 
by Anna Letitia Le Breton. Crown 8vo, cloth, 9s. 


Cobbe (Miss F. P.)—The Hopes of the Human Race, Here- 
after and Here. Essays on the Life after Death and the Evolution of 
the Social Sentiment. Crown 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6d. 


Cobbe (Miss F. P.)—Essays. Darwinism in Morals, and 


(18) other Essays (Religion in Childhood, Unconscious Cerebration, 
Dreams, the Devil, Auricular Confession, ὅσο, &c.) 400 pp. 8vo, 
cloth (published at 10s.), 5s. 


Cobbe (Miss F. P.)—Religious Duty. δύο, cloth (published 
at 7s. 6d.), 5s. 


Cobbe (Miss F. P.)—Broken Lights. An Inquiry into the 
Present Condition and Future Prospects of Religious Faith. New 
Edition. 8vo, cloth, 5s. 


Cobbe (Miss F. P.)—Dawning Lights. An Inquiry con- 


cerning the Secular Results of the New Reformation. 8vo, cloth, 5s. 


Cobbe (Miss F. P.)—Alone to the Alone. Prayers for 
Theists, by several Contributors. New Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, 5s. 


Cobbe (Miss F. P.)—Studies, New and Old, of Ethical and 
Social Subjects. 8vo, cloth (published at 10s. 6d.), 5s. 


Cobbe (Miss F: P.)—TItalics. Brief Notes on Politics, People 
and Places in Italy in 1864. 8vo, cloth (published at 12s. 6d.), 5s. 


Cobbe (Miss EF. P.)—Hours of Work and Flay. 8vo, 
cloth, 2s. 6d. 


Davidson (Dr. S.)—On a Fresh Revision of the English 
Old Testament. By Samvset Davipson, D.D. Crown 8vo, cloth, 5s. 


Echoes of Holy Thoughts: arranged as Private Meditations 
before a First Communion. Second Edition, with a Preface by the 
Rev. J. Hamitton Txom, of Liverpool. Printed with red lines. 
Crown 8yo, cloth, 2s. 6d. 


PUBLISHED BY WILLIAMS AND NORGATE. 3 


Flower (F. W.)— Adam’s Disobedience, and the Results 


attributed to it, as affecting the Human Race. Second Edition, en- 
larged and corrected. 8vo, cloth, 6s. θά. 


fTigginson (Rev. E.)—Ece Messias ; or, The Hebrew Mes- 
sianic Hope and the Christian Reality. By Epwarp Hiaernson, 
8vo, cloth (published at 10s. 6d.), 6s. 


Fesus (The) of History. By the Hon. Sir Richard Hanson, 
Chief Justice of South Australia. 8vo, cloth, 12s. 


Keim (Dr. T.)—History of Fesus of Nazara. Considered 
in its connection with the National Life of Israel, and related in detail. 
Translated from the German. Vol. I. 8vo, cloth, 10s. 6d. 


Kuenen (Dr. A.)—The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the 
Jewish State. Translated from the Dutch by A. H. May, 8yvo, 
cloth, 10s. 6d. 


Letters to and from Rome in the Years A.D. 61, 62, and 63. 
Translated by C. V. 8. Crown 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. 


Mackay (R. W.)—Progress of the Intellect, as exemplified 
in the Religious Development of the Greeks and Hebrews, 2 vols. 
8vo, cloth, 24s. 


Mackay (R. W.)—Sketch of the Rise and Progress of Chris- 
tianity. 8vo, cloth (published at 10s. 6d.), 6s, 


Man’s (A) Belief: an Essay on the Facts of Religious Know- 


ledge. Crown 8yo, sewed, 2s. 


Martineau (Rev. Dr. Fames).— Religion as affected by 
Modern Materialism, Third Edition. 8vo, sewed, 18. 


Martineau (Rev. Dr. Fames).— New Affinities of Faith; 


a Plea for Free Christian Union, 12mo, ls. 


Multum in Parvo.—Thoughts for every Day in the Year. 
Selected from the Writings of Spiritually-minded Persons, By the 
Author of “ Visiting my Relations.” Crown 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. 


Must God annthilate the Wicked? A Reply to Dr. Fos. 
Parker. 12mo, 1s. 


Review of the Four Gospels. Part I. Their Evidentiary 


Value. 8vo, 18. 


4 CATALOGUE OF SOME WORKS 


Reville (Rev. Dr. A.).—The Song of Songs, commonly called 
the Song of Solomon, or the Canticle. Translated from the French. 
Crown 8vo, cloth, 18. 6d. 


Reville (Rev. Alb.)—The Devil: his Origin, Greatness, and 
Decadence. Translated from the French of the Rev. AtBert Reviuuz, 
D.D. 12mo, cloth, 5s. 


Samuelson (Fames).—Views of the Detty, Traditional and 
Scientific ; a Contribution to the Study of Theological Science. By 
James SAaMuELSoN, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, 
Founder and former Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Science. 
Crown 8vo, cloth, 4s. 6d. 


Spencer (Herbert).—Essays, Scientific, Political, and Specu- 
lative. (Being the First and Second Series re-arranged, and con- 
taining an additional Essay.) Cheaper Edition. 2 vols. 8vo, 
cloth, 16s. 


A Third Volume of Essays (Second Edition), 7s. 6d. 


Strauss (Dr. D. F.)—New Life of Fesus. The Authorized 
English Edition. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth, 24s. 


Taine (H.)—On Fohn Stuart Mill. English Positivism. 
A Study. Translated by T. D. Haye. Second Edition. Crown 8vo, 
cloth, 3s. 


Tayler (Rev. Fohn Fames ).—Letters, embracing his Life, of 
John James Tayler, Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Biblical 
Theology ; and Principal of Manchester New College, London. Edited 
by the Rev. Joun Hamitton ΤΉΟΜ, 2 vols. crown 8vo, with Portrait, 
in one volume cloth, 10s. 6d. 


Tayler (Rev. Ὁ. F.J—An Attempt to ascertain the Character 
of the Fourth Gospel, especially in its relation to the Three First. 
New Edition. 8vo, cloth, 5s. 


Theological Review: a Fournal of keligious Thought and 
Life. Published Quarterly. Each No. 8vo, 2s. 6d. 
Annual Subscription, 10s. post free. 


Williams (Dr. Rowland).—The Hebrew Prophets. Trans- 
lated afresh, and Illustrated for English Readers. 2 vols. 8vo, 
loth, 22s. 6d. 


PUBLISHED BY WILLIAMS AND NORGATE. 5 


Williams (Dr. Rowland).—Psalms and Litantes, Counsels 
and Collects, for Devout Persons. Edited by his Widow. Foolscap 4to, 
cloth extra, 12s. 6d. 


Williams (Dr. Rowland).— broadchalke Sermon Essays. 
On Nature, Mediation, Atonement, Absolution. Crown 8vo, cloth, 
7s. 6d. 


THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION FUND. 


A Series of Translations by which the best results of recent Theological 
investigations on the Continent, conducted without reference to doctrinal 
considerations, and with the sole purpose of arriving at truth, will be placed 
within reach of English readers. 

Three Volumes annually for a Guinea Subscription. The Prospectus 
may be had. 


The first year’s issue includes— 
Keim ( T:)—History of Fesus of Nazara, Vol. 7. 
Baur ( C.)—FPaul, his Life and Works, Vol. 7. 
Kuenen (A.)—The Religion of Israel. Vol. f. 


The second year’s issue— 


The Second Volumes of the above second and third Works, 
and 


Bleek on the Apocalypse. 


WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 


14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON ; 
AND 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 
















ἐμ ζε ὍΝ 
me ἶ 


; “ea ha p iy \ : 
Cron A at LEE N nie, 
wild etd ed Batibd: kaowis Edie err oF 

















‘a> Rod i 
os Le i uy ᾿ et Ὁ 
) oak Ey 4) Pi eee ἊΝ Ρ 
λιν. ~ Te ἔν 
/ : a 
‘ ‘ ΩΣ 
a 


% 
͵ 
᾿ ἡ 
ἢ 
‘ a vt 
‘nies Ta) <p ὉΣΚΧΎΥ eat 
sees i Ὁ}: LL 
ἱ , 7 
MEAG PEON +xHSaGTe ALTTHE 


gv ἌΝΩ AD, τὰν fi 





are 
ΠῚ ¥ 
OFA 
j si i ιν γι 


‘ 
rar i 


nr} 











| BS2851 .4.B25 
| The lost and hostile gospels: an essay 


Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Libra 


heolo na ry 


1 1012 00014 2002 



































































































μων ῶς ΩΝ 


J int: ld Ἵ | i ἱ ' va ΠΑΡ ἡ 4 







bay) ἽΝ ΝΥ e eO ᾿ 
ΜΝ ἐπ ΔΝ if ἧς mt ae gh ΤῸ yh ΠΝ 
re ἣ ΨΥ hk on a 


" 


. 
ae 


RAT COMIN PRS GA UN PN VP OIE SIRS EIS Par ey. CR ἡΝ 











i 


στα το το WN νος κοι 


MASE 


Set tea pine 


Ν ἜΤΟΣ sa eet 
WEE Wee 








Ve yes aw 





PSPS CE ONT YEW PEI APA ES es NR me OE NY το 


rere 5 Δ ΣΧ we πὰ ΥΩ 
BP Ute etn ἘΝ Ng OPP Be 


Sn ae 8 Ne ὡρ γα τῷ lett Re 
Bagi 3 the tigen 


PONTE Ne ON, 
NL SPR a Rtn RT 





- WT PARP ante eet 
AREAS Ae ΣῪΝ 
bona beds 





EEO eae . te τ ae rere 
WA ean ῳ a τα . » oN ΤῊ ἴα Ν᾿ ὭΡΑ TCI ὧν τῷ SFR wrt ey, 
: PA EM πυρὸν OF AR Ny UE a WS ae 
ΣΧ ΣΧ 
BPE EER LER EPR TW OE ak ae Ge EM 
NE LAS No sar ib SPEAR AN pay APD Liem we READ hag 
TER MER papel WAN 
hah Wet tea ca Ria 
WPSIA ROE μάν τ PSK ον 





ΝΣ 
POF ane 
SPARE SE te ΚΘ Te RN WED aE ἢ oP Ret: Ge OE 
Co i Mano 
4’ AEN Ἀν ΣᾺ a gs GWT 
OA RIES WO a Are ye uC ky, 
Suite h Ake cto κι Ἂν ψ ἐν α 
Re ΨΑ Ια a res 


(PMT NA Ne Dear owe 





δ re gyn μιν Ape WEN ae 
RIP RE SEERA SZ RET OP RRA EL 
PAS RT Wr Be a EP 


ὃ FOE ANS eee 
που μὰ TURAL Wontar tA NE RTD A 


Dg Mien OF a 
OE IN LE Ce Or ἐπε Reve κω, αν αν σὰ trea 
SRE ENE EEE OFT RR STE NONE AA ΤΑΣ ΜΌΝ ΣῊ 





* UA NAIR A A He OHA CNT He, 
EPOM AS ENE HAR ORONO? EE REGAN AOE ee γα 





SENAY AME ILE WIN RIVE A ee] Ae SOE? BEN O gy 


ΝΣ Cr a raed 


bth les Ge γτᾶρ πω 





S98 ΔΌΣ ΟΦ UMN τὸ Ve doe RN IA PUR EAR RY Bate τῶν Ailey eh poet 


MDMA WEE OE 


1 QF Ae Lb Ap ate 
FOS eae ζω ἂν 
LH ὡδινεχδες 


BUI AS DRY, 
reer ὅν alee 
SEES TE UP Δ ἘΦ UN δι 
BENE ERT Ripe ΦᾺΣ HP EOEP ee a ay 
SP VERE: ae PORE TM WO ET AE 
STO OEY MR RR WEN ES: 
Sh ἘΣ aN) 


Ah ae Se AC Κλ γν 


BNR ; ᾿ ᾿ δ Mi Set ne Be ree Bete μὰ μὴ ARAN KE τὰς νὸν 
SYAUA ERA Was Sets MeL ERNE Te RA Sh 





























ow πο r Pe oe a ee 
= ea σα "δὶ τῷ Ἂν on ama Σ τα ἀπ τς 3 * wt Pe Se rae ed Qe AS teh Sle - 
ROG TORE NE τὸ τ Ale re ον σὰν ἘΣ marae NP So RIT PNY 8H oe ese « pO et — eth by ei ELD 
La τ, τ nian fgets, dni Sect ope τον ἥν τ λον ΒΟ, tore eH δ ταν 


ἘΣ" 


os 


ey wo pes os. 





ΣΟ ΣΝ 


ας 


RR κεν σι 
ΩΝ 


Pai trae at 
“ 
nN pacers yen 





pea sie em ey 
mors: . 4 EAR Rey M eam κρέα σάφα 
we gene εν Oe ty » ‘ 


μ eee hen tei? 
anes 


ike he tale te er ey aie 
ἘΣ fein NN βεκοϑα σας 
ον ον age diate ot oa PMs σον, κ᾿ 
VENA SE He ANE AS NEMA Ue ἶσον on ater ΠΝ 
SAREE I 8 ὁ τόκῳ οἰ CE Deed poe & ἐτορδ,ναῦθα aye αν δ ον Ae g RE 
. hak SII Pies 





Se alee κι 
PN LOREAL RENNES OSH ete 


tM ee, 


Te dean ee 
RL ot Am ORME wryNy 
BAA we RAS, 





RM Ta ree” 
ΕΣ ΩΣ ΕΝ ΟΝ 

“αὐ δος tg τὰ συ σὸς αν δε 

Be νυ EN ida den tng aed’ 
ΣΌΝ 

PAE EER NABH Amey GOMES 

SADIE TF ae RRR AE ONS, 

δὲ RE bg ee AA Ie ἀρ. 


aE te! she ON ἀκ 
nyee nites yea 
ΡΣ 
πον FSO NSE eT 
Ca Pee EE IE 
SOME MOSH DY ἐνὶ RP». 








et huhu tec dt Risk tok hoe ἢ 
mete tied τ oH 


SIP St 
OK ed 


sah sgt ‘ 


ΜῊ 


τ 
hear 
A 
re 
ee 
eee Siri κε σανὸν ἐπ i 
Cts Uae eee 





